Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Underground App Store Courts the Jailbroken

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the bring-down-the-towers dept.

Cellphones 295

PainMeds writes "Apple's stepped-up and controversial rejections are helping to foster competition in the app store marketplace. According to an article by Wired, developers aren't taking AppStore rejection lying down, but are turning to the hacking community's repository system for the iPhone to launch an app store of their own. The 4-month-old Cydia store is yielding notably higher sales for a few application developers than Apple's AppStore, and is reportedly running on over 4 million Apple iPhone devices, with perhaps 350,000 connected at any one time. In this store, developers are distributing applications they've written that push the limits of Apple's normal AppStore policies, with software to add file downloads to Safari, trick applications into thinking they're on Wi-Fi (for VoIP), and enhance other types functionality. You'll also find the popular Google Voice application, which was recently rejected by Apple. Third party application development has been around since 2007, when the iPhone was originally introduced, and became so popular that O'Reilly Media published a book geared toward writing applications before an SDK was available. The Cydia store acts as both a free package repository and commercial storefront to third-party developers."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Bye Bye Monopoly (5, Insightful)

GreenTech11 (1471589) | more than 5 years ago | (#28985963)

And there goes Apple's monopoly. I can't say this is a bad thing, it gives users another option, without severely damaging Apple.

Re:Bye Bye Monopoly (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28985985)

Apple needs a good spanking. - LoA

Re:Bye Bye Monopoly (2, Insightful)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 5 years ago | (#28986089)

The problem is that you need jailbroken iphone, which wont be so easy for average joe. There wont be final resolution before Apple also learns that restricting so much is a bad decision.

Re:Bye Bye Monopoly (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28986155)

I jailbroke my iPod touch with fewer than 5 clicks. iPhones/iPods are probably the easiest phones in history (maybe an exaggeration, maybe not) to jailbreak, due to their popularity.

Re:Bye Bye Monopoly (1)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 5 years ago | (#28986201)

The issue isn't all about how easy it is, but because they dont know of other. If they happen to run across something else, there will be list of things you need to do before you can use their store (which usually means connecting phone to computer and doing something non-standard -- we're talking about average joe here). Its great there's other app stores for iphone than apples too, but because of this I dont see how it would be such a major enemy for Apple.

Re:Bye Bye Monopoly (5, Insightful)

Tyr_7BE (461429) | more than 5 years ago | (#28986513)

Most people won't do it though. Sure your average college kid or whatever has no problem downloading an app to jailbreak the phone, but joe average on the street doesn't tend to flock towards anything involving firmware modification. They buy a phone, they use the phone, and that's all they do.

Re:Bye Bye Monopoly (1)

jackharrer (972403) | more than 5 years ago | (#28986179)

Seeing how easy is iPhone jailbreaking nowadays, it's the matter of time word goes around and people start doing it. Of course the Apple will start legal attack, but that's a different story...

Re:Bye Bye Monopoly (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28986223)

need jailbroken iphone

There's an app for that.

Re:Bye Bye Monopoly (3, Insightful)

solcott (1002711) | more than 5 years ago | (#28986227)

The problem is that you need jailbroken iphone, which wont be so easy for average joe. There wont be final resolution before Apple also learns that restricting so much is a bad decision.

Out of curiosity, have you even jailbroken an iPhone?

I'm going to say that for an average Joe, jailbreaking an iPhone is *not* a problem assuming said average Joe both knows how to read and owns a computer with internet access.

Maybe the "below-average" Joes who have an iPhone, but either do not know how to read or do not have a computer with internet access would have a problem figuring out how to jailbreak, but the truly average ones, they won't have any trouble at all.

Re:Bye Bye Monopoly (3, Insightful)

EvilIdler (21087) | more than 5 years ago | (#28986387)

Average Joe won't have trouble doing the jailbreaking thing. They do protest about doing anything that *sounds* complicated. Some people don't *want* to learn anything about computers and electronic devices.

So Apple's own AppStore is safe because most people are lazy idiots :)

Re:Bye Bye Monopoly (4, Interesting)

mini me (132455) | more than 5 years ago | (#28986557)

Have you read any comments in the App Store? The average iPhone user has no idea how to read.

Re:Bye Bye Monopoly (4, Insightful)

oahazmatt (868057) | more than 5 years ago | (#28986229)

I'm somewhat inclined to believe the only reason Apple are so hell-bent on denying you service with any carrier of your choosing is due to their exclusive (and soon-up-for-renewal) contract with AT&T. Apple understands that a sold iPhone is a sold iPhone, but AT&T understands that an iPhone on T-Mobile is approximately $90 a month in lost revenue. I would not at all be surprised if AT&T has a clause in the agreement that states Apple must be pro-active in protecting the device from being used on other networks for the duration of the contract.

I'm also somewhat inclined to believe that should the AT&T exclusive deal come to an end, and the iPhone can be taken to a compatible network of the customer's choosing, the use jailbreaking would decline. I hear far more tales of people who wish to take their iPhones to another carrier rather than download applications that haven't been approved.

Re:Bye Bye Monopoly (4, Interesting)

Chyeld (713439) | more than 5 years ago | (#28986249)

"I'm somewhat inclined to believe the only reason Apple are so hell-bent on denying you service with any carrier of your choosing is due to their exclusive (and soon-up-for-renewal) contract with AT&T."

That and their control fetish.

Re:Bye Bye Monopoly (5, Informative)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 5 years ago | (#28986563)

Apple seems pretty lax, especially compared to other companies, with the OSX86 AND Jailbreaking communities.

They really only went after Pystar when they tried selling OS X clones. The Hackintosh community is doing pretty well just like the Jailbreaking community. Worst I've seen is a takedown letter for some files, but instructions for OS X on the Mini 9 are still out there.

Apple seems to be making it 'reasonably' difficult to keep the interested parties (RIAA/MPAA/AT&T) happy, but they really don't make it impossible to do stuff. OS X Client still doesn't have a 16 digit code to enter to install it. They sell a Family pack of 5 licenses for relatively cheap, even though there's no way to actually hard lock it to JUST 5 computers.

Re:Bye Bye Monopoly (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28986395)

You are confusing Jailbreaking (ability to install non-Apple blessed software) with Unlocking (ability to run on a different carrier's network). The 3rd party apps require only Jailbreaking.

Re:Bye Bye Monopoly (1)

amplt1337 (707922) | more than 5 years ago | (#28986489)

Apple understands that a sold iPhone is a sold iPhone

Nyet, tovarishch. Apple understands that a captive audience to a walled-garden content-delivery system is a continuing revenue stream that only compounds as their hardware business becomes more successful.

Obviously pressure from AT&T is a big part of all this (maybe even the major part), but Apple has skin in the game too. (Plus, that $400 iPhone subsidy from AT&T? You can bet that does not actually represent $400 in Apple's pocket.)

Re:Bye Bye Monopoly (2, Insightful)

DeathMagnetic (1365763) | more than 5 years ago | (#28986613)

Huh? What does moving to another cellular carrier have to do with jailbreaking? I think you're confusing two separate issues here. Yes, you need to jailbreak before doing a carrier unlock, but that's really irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Making the iPhone available on multiple networks, in and of itself, will have little effect on jailbreaking and no effect whatsoever on the use of the Cydia store.

Re:Bye Bye Monopoly (1)

Paul Pierce (739303) | more than 5 years ago | (#28986261)

My gut reaction is to agree that the restrictions from Apple are a bad idea, but if you had the position in Apple to make that decision which one would you make?

Apple appears to be quite aware of keeping customers happy - at least from what I've experienced. There may be less of us on slashdot than we think; the numbers mustn't add up.

How much does Cydia take away from Apple? They must have a good idea; I can't imagine they are just looking at hard numbers, when they are more they type that wants their fanboys still fans.

Re:Bye Bye Monopoly (4, Insightful)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 5 years ago | (#28986623)

"but if you had the position in Apple to make that decision"

I see your point. I have stockholders to answer to, as well as being responsible for honoring contractual commitments.

Even so, I think the RIGHT thing to do, is to announce that Apple will not support jailbroken and/or unlocked telephones. It's cool to only support the thing as it was sold, with proper updates and company approved applications. That is perfectly cool. Using the phone in a manner not approved by Apple voids any and all warranties is cool. (except the battery issue - I don't think Apple can legally drop any liability related to a phone that burns up due to the battery)

What is NOT COOL, is attempting to block people from jailbreaking and/or unlocking their phone. Nor is it cool to obstruct this competing app store.

Obligatory automotive analogy: Ford may very well tell you that modifying your car for stock racing voids all warranties, but they can't prohibit you from making said modification, nor can they prohibit you from racing our stock car.

Re:Bye Bye Monopoly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28986463)

Nope, nope, it's all happening now. There's a tiny, virtually infinitesimal crack in an area of Apple's armor 90% of their userbase doesn't care about, and just like movies have told me, right at the climax that'll be enough to let us destroy the evil empire and then there's cheering and a big parade and everyone's happy ever after and the female lead gives me a big kiss!

Are you trying to tell me that movies lied to me?

Re:Bye Bye Monopoly (1)

deAtog (987710) | more than 5 years ago | (#28986609)

The problem is that you need jailbroken iphone...

This may be true for the moment, but now that someone is actually capitalizing on jailbroken iphones, Apple's attempts to completely restrict people from installing what they want on their devices could be construed as anti-competitive behavior by a judge. That is, if they were to secure all flaws in the phone's operating system via an update and not provide people with the availability to install software from a competing vendor, Apple could face some serious fines for effectively trying to eliminate the competition.

If this ever winds up in court, Apple might try to argue that jailbroken iphones are against the DMCA. The competing store however might argue that it was done for "compatibility" purposes, which last I recall was allowed under current copyright laws. In the end if something like this does ever happen, it'll definitely be a case worth paying attention to.

Re:Bye Bye Monopoly (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 5 years ago | (#28986509)

and hello! Free Market!

And, it really doesn't matter if this "hurts" apple. Sometimes, a little pain aids in growth and learning.

Competition? What is that? (5, Insightful)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 5 years ago | (#28985977)

Normally Apple is on a totally different playing field from any competition... Not here, and it will be interesting to see how they deal with this. :) I am betting lawyers and politicians.

Re:Competition? What is that? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28986093)

If you can't compete, litigate. It's the American way!

Re:Competition? What is that? (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 5 years ago | (#28986393)

Litigation is merely competition by other means.

(With apologies to Clausewitz...)

Re:Competition? What is that? (2, Insightful)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 5 years ago | (#28986647)

Normally Apple is on a totally different playing field from any competition... Not here, and it will be interesting to see how they deal with this. :) I am betting lawyers and politicians.

Unfortunately, that is true. For a jailbroken iPhone/iPod Touch can be trivially enabled to pirate App Store (the official Apple one) apps. Jailbreaking won't get you the ability to install pirated apps, but it's trivial to do it (basically you enable a new repository, which involves maybe 5 or 6 taps and a bit of typing, then another 4 taps or so to install the required tool).

The only interesting thing is, considering how easy it is to pirate real App Store apps, how long until Cydia gets locked down to prevent people from doing the same to its paid apps? RIght now it isn't much of a problem because the vast majority of Cydia apps are free...

all hail... (1)

martas (1439879) | more than 5 years ago | (#28985979)

the revolution!

now we just need some anti-apple slogans. and no, "microsoft" doesn't count.

Re:all hail... (5, Funny)

Chyeld (713439) | more than 5 years ago | (#28986231)

"Apple - Think Less"

On the other hand if you peruse an actual list of 'real' Apple slogans [wikipedia.org] , some of them work without any changes.

"Apple - What kind of man owns his own computer?"

Re:all hail... (1)

OutSourcingIsTreason (734571) | more than 5 years ago | (#28986303)

Hostile phone maker? We've got an app for that!

Re:all hail... (1)

dyingtolive (1393037) | more than 5 years ago | (#28986467)

This just in, it's official, Iphone users are revolting!!!

Actually, the funny thing is that jailbreaking and an underground app store almost makes me WANT to buy one. Too bad Apple will shut them down.

The Obvious Truth (5, Insightful)

geegel (1587009) | more than 5 years ago | (#28985989)

Those that hack or pirate always have it better. No DRM, no restrictions on what software you can install, no need for physical media and the list goes on. Being a nice customer simply doesn't pay anymore these days.

Re:The Obvious Truth (4, Insightful)

causality (777677) | more than 5 years ago | (#28986167)

Those that hack or pirate always have it better. No DRM, no restrictions on what software you can install, no need for physical media and the list goes on. Being a nice customer simply doesn't pay anymore these days.

That should be obvious, yes. Still I see people who defend DRM and I don't understand it. If it were just the occasional one or two I would suspect that perhaps they are astroturfing. It's more than a few so while I have to admit it has some non-zero probability, I really don't think astroturfing is a satisfying explanation. I think plenty of people really feel this way. I apologize in advance for caps, but to them, YOU ARE DEFENDING SOMETHING THAT IS NOT AND COULD NEVER BE IN YOUR INTERESTS, WHY WOULD YOU DO THAT FOR ANY REASON?! If nothing else, understanding this behavior would be an interesting psychological study.

Re:The Obvious Truth (1)

lordandmaker (960504) | more than 5 years ago | (#28986549)

I see many people with the argument "well, if they didn't want me to do it they should have stopped me". This kind of attitude is exactly that which encourages DRM and Speed Cameras and the kinds of databases so beloved of my government.

It's a part of the general trend of society towards a situation where thinking is entirely unnecessary since all decisions have been made for you, and the conclusions made obvious.

Re:The Obvious Truth-IN MORE THAN ONE PLACE (-1, Flamebait)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 5 years ago | (#28986667)

YOU ARE DEFENDING SOMETHING THAT IS NOT AND COULD NEVER BE IN YOUR INTERESTS, WHY WOULD YOU DO THAT FOR ANY REASON?!

I say exactly the same thing about people who voted for Obama because "Change" was more important to them than understanding just what kind of "Change" he had in mind for everybody.

Re:The Obvious Truth (3, Interesting)

Onaga (1369777) | more than 5 years ago | (#28986219)

Not entirely true. Ask the recent defendant who now has to cough up close to $700,000 for his piracy. While being a nice customer might not pay, breaking the law might cost a lot more. Yes, yes, the law might be stupid, but it's still the law.

To date, I have never been able to get out of a speeding ticket by telling the magistrate that the speed limit should be 65 instead of 55 on that highway.

Re:The Obvious Truth (2, Insightful)

rotide (1015173) | more than 5 years ago | (#28986355)

And the absolutely crazy insane part of this is that you listed two offenses (directly and indirectly). Copyright infringement and speeding (moving violation).

One of those two puts peoples lives in danger and the other _potentially_ can put a _fraction_ of a businesses profits in danger.

Which one of the two has an _immensely_ steeper fine?

Absolute absurdity.

Re:The Obvious Truth (1)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 5 years ago | (#28986445)

Well, to bring it back to comparable offences. I have never been able to get away with shoplifting a CD if I am caught with the defence "It should be free because the music is rubbish and I only want 1 track".

Re:The Obvious Truth (1)

arose (644256) | more than 5 years ago | (#28986551)

Have you been fined $700,000 for shoplifting however? Besides, it's not compareable anyway, shoplifting creates a very real loss for the store.

Re:The Obvious Truth (2, Insightful)

causality (777677) | more than 5 years ago | (#28986383)

To date, I have never been able to get out of a speeding ticket by telling the magistrate that the speed limit should be 65 instead of 55 on that highway.

A highway I use sometimes had the speed limit raised from 55 to 65 recently. I should emphasize that there has been no new construction on that road. Now, before the limit was raised, if I were ticketed for doing 65 while it was 55 I would have been told that this was for my safety. Now, if the state had any sense of honor (haha) they would refund the fines paid by anyone who was ticketed for going 10 mph or less over the speed limit because they are effectively admitting that they had it wrong.

The copyright laws have become increasingly punitive. Because of that, if we ever see any reform for copyright it makes me wonder if those who were prosecuted under what are later acknowledged to be bad laws should be compensated in some way. I admit that whether they realistically will be is a separate question from whether they should be.

Re:The Obvious Truth (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28986455)

Yes but I know a traffic engineer that got a job adding an additional left turn lane for getting a ticket continuing after the light turned red. That did pay.

Re:The Obvious Truth (1)

Krneki (1192201) | more than 5 years ago | (#28986515)

"To date, I have never been able to get out of a speeding ticket by telling the magistrate that the speed limit should be 65 instead of 55 on that highway."

I try to avoid the cops, when I get the bill at home I tell them it wasn't me driving and a pick a random guy from a foreign country.

Fuck the law,

Re:The Obvious Truth (5, Informative)

Colonel Korn (1258968) | more than 5 years ago | (#28986625)

Not entirely true. Ask the recent defendant who now has to cough up close to $700,000 for his piracy. While being a nice customer might not pay, breaking the law might cost a lot more. Yes, yes, the law might be stupid, but it's still the law.

To date, I have never been able to get out of a speeding ticket by telling the magistrate that the speed limit should be 65 instead of 55 on that highway.

In the US that's actually one of the easiest ways to get out of a speeding ticket (a family member of mine just did it, and has done it before). If you can prove that the speed limit on a non-highway should be higher than it is (based on state guidelines for deciding speed limits) and a review of that speed limit hasn't been done in X years (X= 2 or 3, I think), you can get out of the ticket and force the police to collect data on driving habits on that road in order to define a new speed limit.

Re:The Obvious Truth (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28986401)

Being a nice customer simply doesn't pay anymore these days.

This is entirely due to the fact that most businesses stoped being nice to their customers! Apparently they some how came to the (blatantly false) conclusion that treating customers and potential customers decently wasn't worth the marginal effort and expense. In consentual transactions; politeness, fairness, and loyality tend to be two-way streets!

How blown out is it?!? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28985991)

Rob Malda's asshole is so blown out it looks like an Arby's sandwich!

Don't worry- the U.S. tyranny will arrest soon (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 5 years ago | (#28985993)

...just as they arrested that guy who was illegally modifying PS3s without Sony's permission. We cannot allow people to have control over their own property.

Re:Don't worry- the U.S. tyranny will arrest soon (-1, Flamebait)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 5 years ago | (#28986079)

P.S.

That's what that whole Professor Gates thing was about. He believed he owned his house and had a right not to let others enter his property. But he was wrong, because the U.S. government merely "leases" your property and can control how you use your home, just the same way Apple controls your iPhone or Sony your PS3. The police entering the home and handcuffing the resident made that clear - property ownership is an old-fashioned and dead idea. /end Devil's Advocate mode

Re:Don't worry- the U.S. tyranny will arrest soon (1)

cyber-vandal (148830) | more than 5 years ago | (#28986429)

Ah right so if you commit a crime, as long as you go home you should be free from prosecution?

Re:Don't worry- the U.S. tyranny will arrest soon (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 5 years ago | (#28986139)

I'm not sure this would be much of the same. For one, the jail braking doesn't really enable pirated stuff to play, just non-approved stuff. For two, the jail breaking is being done by the user and not some guy selling the modified devices after the fact. Selling modified phones or Xboxes isn't really the same as you having control over your own property.

Finally, I think this arena might already be covered by the Fair Use exceptions to the restrictions on the copyright protection laws. If it isn't, it will clearly send a message that it needs to be and might even be so because of some court case. Again, selling modified devices is not the same as making your own device work in ways it wasn't intended as long as violating copyright isn't the goal.

Re:Don't worry- the U.S. tyranny will arrest soon (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 5 years ago | (#28986245)

>>> the jail braking doesn't really enable pirated stuff to play, just non-approved stuff.

According to the U.S. Digital Millenium Copyright Act, it doesn't matter. The mere *act* of jailbreaking a product is illegal, even if your goal is just to run the freeware EDIT on your iPhone or PS3 or whatever.

Re:Don't worry- the U.S. tyranny will arrest soon (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28986331)

The mere *act* of jailbreaking a product is illegal,

I thought the DMCA made it illegal to *distribute* a 'circumvention device', but not to obtain, posess or use one?

Re:Don't worry- the U.S. tyranny will arrest soon (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 5 years ago | (#28986427)

According to the U.S. Digital Millenium Copyright Act, it doesn't matter.

Yes it does! It bars circumventing copy protection mechanisms. Devices that bypass interoperability restrictions have been considered fair use in past cases.

Cue the inevitable... (1, Flamebait)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 5 years ago | (#28985995)

Posts from the ostensibly-libertarian about how much safer and nicer it is firmly under steve's thumb...

Re:Cue the inevitable... (0, Troll)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 5 years ago | (#28986161)

At least Steve Jobs is merely a person, and not a member of Congress. He can't *force* me to buy his products, like a Congressman can force me to buy health insurance I don't want. In fact the only iPod in my house is one that I stole.

Uh oh.

I shouldna told you that.

Re:Cue the inevitable... (1)

cyber-vandal (148830) | more than 5 years ago | (#28986453)

You don't want a basic level of care available to you? Are you invincible?

Re:Cue the inevitable... (0, Troll)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 5 years ago | (#28986461)

Foxnews in the sig.

Yup. Crazy.

Move along folks, nothing useful to read here.

Don't own an iPhone (1)

SomeWhiteGuy (920943) | more than 5 years ago | (#28986007)

but I'm glad that someone is challenging them in this way. If you're going to have a device that is touted as one of the most powerful and useful, don't stifle the development community by rejecting the better applications they send your way.

Re:Don't own an iPhone (1)

jDeepbeep (913892) | more than 5 years ago | (#28986183)

but I'm glad that someone is challenging them in this way. If you're going to have a device that is touted as one of the most powerful and useful, don't stifle the development community by rejecting the better applications they send your way.

And in the meantime, iFart Mobile rakes in thousands per day. :/

It was inevitable (4, Insightful)

Drakkenmensch (1255800) | more than 5 years ago | (#28986015)

Software programmers are free thinkers. They don't like being told what to do by a monolithic entity trying to hold all the cards and write all the game's rules.

Re:It was inevitable (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#28986491)

Um, Software programmers are just a group of people, some of which are free thinkers, just like most other groups.

"They don't like being told what to do by a monolithic entity trying to hold all the cards and write all the game's rules."

Nobody likes that, except the entity doing it. Even entities that do that don't like it when other entities do it.

Re:It was inevitable (1)

Fnord666 (889225) | more than 5 years ago | (#28986615)

They don't like being told what to do by a monolithic entity trying to hold all the cards and write all the game's rules.

Writing software for the iPhone and submitting it for approval is about as fun as playing a game of Mao [wikipedia.org] , and for the same reasons.

jailbroken should be called liberated (1)

gandhi_2 (1108023) | more than 5 years ago | (#28986021)

i'm surprised the soviet union didn't come up with the "walled garden" phrase.

Jailbreaking is where it's at (2, Funny)

nsteinme (909988) | more than 5 years ago | (#28986033)

If you haven't jailbroken yours yet, you haven't lived.

Re:Jailbreaking is where it's at (1, Interesting)

whisper_jeff (680366) | more than 5 years ago | (#28986283)

Really? I haven't jailbroken my iPod Touch and I'm quite happy with it. The only complaint that I have with it is that it's a first gen and not a second gen (and thus lacks the hardware that the second gen has). On the software side, it's doing everything I want it to do, quite nicely. So, I'm curious (and not trying to be a smartass even though it comes easily to me), what am I missing? Beyond "freedom" and "control of my device" since I feel free to use it and control it as I want already - what am I missing that jailbreaking my device could offer?

Re:Jailbreaking is where it's at (2, Insightful)

gclef (96311) | more than 5 years ago | (#28986479)

One big one that I find frustrating on the Touch is the inability to use it as an USB storage device. I brought the Touch with me on a recent trip to Europe, and found (much to my frustration) that I could not copy pictures from my camera over to the Touch without installing iTunes on every random computer I used. I wanted to just connect both the camera and the Touch to my friend's laptop & drag the pictures across...apparently Apple doesn't want me to do that, which I think is stupid.

Also, on a corporate level, I'd love to be able to have a separate App store that just our company's iPhones/Touches used. That would allow us to put out custom apps for just us, which would make the iPhone & Touch hugely popular at the office. But we can't. Pity.

Re:Jailbreaking is where it's at (1)

whisper_jeff (680366) | more than 5 years ago | (#28986569)

The app you're looking for (from the iTunes store) is Air Sharing. It allows you to connect your computer to your iPod Touch (or iPhone) via wifi and use it just like a harddrive. I have this app, have used it, and love it. Easy and does exactly what you're looking for. Apple is just fine with it (they've offered it for quite some time now).

Why Jailbreak? Here's why (3, Informative)

blahbooboo (839709) | more than 5 years ago | (#28986545)

http://thebigboss.org/why-jailbreak-iphone/ [thebigboss.org]

The apps interfaces are so amazing compared to the boring vanilla apps. check qtwitter or sbsettings for examples.

Re:Jailbreaking is where it's at (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#28986559)

The ability to put any app you want on it.

You may feel free to use it and control it how you want, but in reality you are not. You are free to use it as long as it's within the bounds set by Apple.

The fact that you are limited in what you can out on it means you won't know what you are missing.

Maybe there isn't any applications you want, but that doesn't mean you should have your choices limited.

"Beyond "freedom" "
Should that be enough?

Re:Jailbreaking is where it's at (1)

whisper_jeff (680366) | more than 5 years ago | (#28986657)

I don't disagree with having the choice to use it as I want. I don't disagree with that at all. My question is "what am I missing?" Telling me I'm missing something wonderful by not jailbreaking my iPod but failing to tell me what I'm missing doesn't help me at all... I agree with the freedom and control but, currently, under the restrictions Apple has implemented, I don't feel constrained or, well, restricted. Feel free to tell me how I'm wrong. Please.

Re:Jailbreaking is where it's at (3, Funny)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 5 years ago | (#28986321)

>>>If you haven't jailbroken yours yet, you haven't lived.

I suspect it's only a matter of time until this falls into common slang. "That was my girlfriend Emily." "Wow she's cute. Have you jailbroken her yet?" "No but she promised me on the night of the prom she'd let me."

Re:Jailbreaking is where it's at (1)

idlemachine (732136) | more than 5 years ago | (#28986425)

I think the term you meant was "jailbaited".

Re:Jailbreaking is where it's at (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#28986571)

I jailbroke her with your mother.

Pros and Cons (1)

Fyzzle (1603701) | more than 5 years ago | (#28986049)

Undoubtedly Apple will fight this to the ends of the Earth, but it really is needed.

Although you can't really blame Apple for denying Google Voice and similar apps since they really have rhyme or reason in their vetting process. It seems like a thousand monkey on a thousand typewriters approving apps.

It's nice to see these great apps finding a home, although since it is more lax the risks start to go up.

In the end the consumer wins, anyone not inclined to go outside the comfort zone of Apple's store gets a good selection of applications that are backed by Apple. The rest of us get more variety.

Re:Pros and Cons (5, Insightful)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 5 years ago | (#28986195)

Although you can't really blame Apple for denying Google Voice and similar apps

You can't really blame Comcast for denying access to hulu.com or tnt.com or scifi.com.....

Just something to think about - the motives for these denials are clear.

Re:Pros and Cons (1)

OzPeter (195038) | more than 5 years ago | (#28986351)

You can't really blame Comcast for denying access to hulu.com or tnt.com or scifi.com.....

Just something to think about - the motives for these denials are clear.

Except that I am on comcast and I can get to all three of those sites.

Re:Pros and Cons (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28986361)

Woooosh

Re:Pros and Cons (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28986661)

Whoosh

Re:Pros and Cons (4, Funny)

Kozz (7764) | more than 5 years ago | (#28986443)

You can't really blame Comcast for denying access to hulu.com or tnt.com or scifi.com.....

Don't you mean Siffy? Err, SyFy?

Re:Pros and Cons (1)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 5 years ago | (#28986527)

The motive for denying google voice is the deal with AT&T. There will almost certainly be a clause in their contract that forces Apple's hand on this (or whatever smartphone manufacturer they make a deal with) - this is a mobile phone company we're talking about here. If your grandma died while on the phone calling for help and left it off the hook having accidentally dialed the Australian speaking clock in the death throes, they would still chase you to the ends of the earth for payment of the bill.

Apple has no financial penalty for allowing google voice on the iPhone. They don't care if you phone your friend on google voice or via AT&T, since their profit comes from the phone you are physically holding.

AT&T cares though.

Re:Pros and Cons (1)

pjt33 (739471) | more than 5 years ago | (#28986725)

Although you can't really blame Apple for denying Google Voice and similar apps

You can't really blame Comcast for denying access to hulu.com or tnt.com or scifi.com.....

Hmm. Let's test this. "I blame Comcast for denying access to hulu.com, tnt.com and scifi.com". Myth busted.

"I blame Apple for..." Excuse me, some guys in a black helicopter just landed in my back garden. Excuse me while I go and see what they want.

4 months? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28986055)

Cydia has been around longer than 4 months. Prior to that there were other "App stores" as well. All for the jail broken.

Correction... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28986121)

It amazes me how often the details in these stories are completely wrong...

"You'll also find the popular Google Voice application, which was recently rejected by Apple."

You won't find the Google Voice app which was recently rejected ANYWHERE in Cydia. Do you honestly think Google, who are practically partners on the iPhone considering the Apple/Google relationship as well as the phone coming with Google Maps and Youtube baked in, would turn to releasing software in Cydia?

What you WILL find in Cydia is the GV Mobile app which was approved and added to the App Store and later pulled. This IS NOT the Google Voice app that was recently rejected, it's a completely different app that was written by a 3rd party.

I don't think it's too much to ask for a technology site to not get huge details wrong in their writeups. :-/

apple is for faggots (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28986147)

before you mod this down think about it while taking another dick up your ass.

Isn't it ironic... (5, Insightful)

2obvious4u (871996) | more than 5 years ago | (#28986165)

That the company trumpeting how 1984 wouldn't be like 1984 was the company to most make it like 1984?

Re:Isn't it ironic... (1, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#28986701)

Please, MS and Sony have done far more then Apple.
Actually, the DMCA has done for more then any of those companies.

I am not excusing Apples behaviour here, just pointing out that Apple is the least offender out there.

Apple must be crying all the way to the bank (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28986187)

Do you really think Apple is upset that individuals are adding attractions to their hardware? This is the best of both worlds for Apple. These guerrilla outfits open up new markets for the iPhone while Apple still gets to pretend they run a clean shop and are adhering to their AT&T contract.

I like the idea with reservations (4, Informative)

stokessd (89903) | more than 5 years ago | (#28986209)

I like the idea of free choice when it comes to what I run on my phone. And I'm in serious need of adblock on the phone (c'mon apple, the 3G pipe is small, I don't want to waste time downloading that crap). But the thing that keeps me from jailbraking my phone is:

1) primarily it's a phone and it's got to be reliable. I'm not going to do anything to reduce the already marginal reliability of the cell network.

2) Once jailbroken it's a constant game of cat and mouse when it comes to updates. I don't want to have to research every system patch and update to see when it's ok to use it and how. This goes back to point 1, it's an appliance for me, with extra functionality I can strap on. It's not a cutting edge geeky plaything because that would hose up the core functionality that I need (the phone part)

So in this regard, I look at android and think that the grass is a bit greener over there. But there's a lot of reasons to stay with the iPhone if you aren't butthurt over someone else telling you what you can do with the shiny.

Sheldon

Re:I like the idea with reservations (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28986271)

If it broke the phone I doubt quite so many people would do it, instead of just getting a Palm.

Jobs doesn't understand history . . . . (1, Flamebait)

bogidu (300637) | more than 5 years ago | (#28986247)

What I find most amazing about this whole thing is that Jobs keeps repeating the same mistakes that made Apple the #2 computer maker in the world (as opposed to #1). Apple computers have always had this 'elitest' mentality, more expensive, insufficient quantity of freely available applications due to a closed hardware standard. Meanwhile the IBM compatible cleaned up not due to superior product but openly replaceable components and a variety of applications that could be traded, installed, hacked, improved, etc. . . . .

I personally couldn't care less about the iPhone, but I do own a touch and the ability to use a variety of "non-blessed" apps makes it a more useful device as there is a greater variety of things that CAN be done with it. Remember the old BBS days? You could cruise the different file download areas and oh all the wonderful little trinkets you could find and do with your pc? My touch is starting to become the same way. A truly easy to use portable computer.

*sigh* will Apple ever learn?

Re:Jobs doesn't understand history . . . . (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 5 years ago | (#28986333)

What I find most amazing about this whole thing is that Jobs keeps repeating the same mistakes that made Apple the #2 computer maker in the world (as opposed to #1).

Apple are number 5 (in terms of units shipped). I don't think there's reason to believe that a more open Apple platform would have worked for Apple. It didn't help IBM that much.

Re:Jobs doesn't understand history . . . . (4, Insightful)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 5 years ago | (#28986641)

Apple did open their platform to clones. It very nearly killed them completely. Apple are a hardware company.

Apple is making an *enormous* amount of money with their hardware and software in its current configuration, and I believe is very high up the charts on total number of machines shipped. They are very clearly not dying. In fact, their marketshare in terms of computers and phones, and portable music players is going up, year on year.

A hackable iPod/iPhone is a niche market. The slashdot audience really isn't the primary target audience. If you want a hackable smartphone, there's Android. If you just want a flashy smartphone with the internet, street cred, a camera, games, and tons of apps of varying usefulness (from things that make your phone into a flashlight and make silly noises, right up to high quality games, task manager apps and sat nav) then the iPhone is for you.

Not that I'm saying the Android lacks street cred, but the iPhone really made smartphones cool. Blackberrys were around, and were pretty popular, but when the iPhone came out - boom. And now we have a huge slew of competitors who are releasing phones that look just like an iPhone. Funny that!

The platform is very transparent up front - ie, you know it is locked to AT&T, you know the app system is tightly controlled by Apple, you know the hardware is tightly controlled. None of this is hidden. If you want a hackable phone, it is yelling at you right out that it's not the purchase for you.

Re:Jobs doesn't understand history . . . . (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#28986681)

Apple is making a ton of money, and they have created 'the' music device.
And it is 'open enough' for 99% of it's users. Granted, I suspect it's 'open enough' to those users because they haven't peaked over the wall, so to speak.

In fact, I would say there doing pretty good:
Apple has growth:
http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=AAPL#chart3:symbol=aapl;range=5y;indicator=volume;charttype=line;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=on;source=undefined [yahoo.com]

MS has nearly no growth:
http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=MSFT#chart1:symbol=msft;range=5y;indicator=volume;charttype=line;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=on;source=undefined [yahoo.com]

License agreements on hardware don't make sense (2)

judolphin (1158895) | more than 5 years ago | (#28986259)

Apple, AT&T and other cell phone companies have yet to realize that imposing unreasonable restrictions on your own customers -- on a physical object your customers *bought* -- defies common sense.

People who own a physical piece of equipment should be able to use their equipment in any way that doesn't break the law or hurt others.

Some protections of the manufacturer are understandable, but they must be within reason. The more unreasonable the restrictions, the less legitimate they seem in the eyes of customers. The less legitimate they seem, the less guilt people feel for breaking the restrictions. The less guilty people feel, the more the "undesired" actions become mainstream (hence the jailbroken iPhone App Store). Plus, if they're extremely unreasonable, the FCC might just step in and void them.

In short, when dealing with consumers, being draconian as a company (a.) makes your product less valuable and (b.) reduces or eliminates goodwill customers have towards you. Apple needs to realize that you simply can't force people to do exactly what you want.

Duh.

Re:License agreements on hardware don't make sense (1)

mad_minstrel (943049) | more than 5 years ago | (#28986643)

Sounds great in theory, but judging from iPod sales around the world, the opposite seems to be true.

think we can all agree (1)

eatspoop (1604225) | more than 5 years ago | (#28986297)

http://apple.eatspoop.com/ [eatspoop.com] - why can't apple just treat the iphone like a computer? i'll stick with my broadband card until this gets resolved 2 or 3 years down the road.

Google Voice not on Cydia (5, Informative)

grahamsaa (1287732) | more than 5 years ago | (#28986475)

The Google Voice app is NOT available on Cydia. GV Mobile (not a Google product) is available, but it doesn't integrate well with the iPhone's contact list. GV mobile is a far cry from any native app that Google would have released for the iPhone.

Wrong mod. (3, Insightful)

ElSupreme (1217088) | more than 5 years ago | (#28986501)

Whoops accidently modded the wrong thing.

Good For Them! (0, Redundant)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 5 years ago | (#28986579)

Good for them. Apple needs to be told that once I pay for it that it's my iPhone and I'll use it as I please without their nanny-state anti-competitive meddling.

Apple may be the source of many new, good, and original ideas, but they aren't the only source of them. If it doesn't damage the AT&T system -- or any other carrier I chose to give my business to with my iPhone -- (and tethering and VOIP don't damage the under-provisioned AT&T system since I pay for the right to transport my bits) then I should be able to do it. The rest are just stupid restrictions designed with the sole purpose of ripping me off even worse than you're already ripping me off.

Quit trying to hold back and prevent the rest of us from being able to benefit from the advances in technology with your old voice business model.

Ubuntu does it right (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28986705)

apt-get has it right IMO:

Ubuntu (or debian?) blessed apps are categorized as such. If someone only wants such blessed (and signed) apps, they can limit their search to that space. If you want to take chances, you can open up to the 'multi-verse' of apt-get where stuff is placed, but not blessed. You lose the sense that someone has inspected the code and found it ok, but you gain the ability to get things that didn't seek/get such a blessing if you want it.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?