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!

Apple Quietly Drops iOS Jailbreak Detection API

kdawson posted more than 3 years ago | from the if-i-were-to-ask-you dept.

Iphone 164

bednarz writes "Without explanation, Apple has disabled a jailbreak detection API in iOS, less than six months after introducing it. Device management vendors say the reasons for the decision are a mystery, but insist they can use alternatives to discover if an iPhone, iPod touch, or iPad has been modified so it can load and alter applications outside of Apple's iTunes-based App Store."

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

Because they realized it was fruitless (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34519456)

If you can jailbreak the phone, you can trick the detection API. Once the system is "untrustable" it is not trustable.

Re:Because they realized it was fruitless (5, Funny)

PNutts (199112) | more than 3 years ago | (#34519502)

If you can jailbreak the phone, you can trick the detection API. Once the system is "untrustable" it is not trustable.

My God. Someone actually RTFA.

Re:Because they realized it was fruitless (1)

icebike (68054) | more than 3 years ago | (#34520432)

Still, why bother to disable it?

Perhaps there is some legal angle to this. Since jailbreak is not illegal, having a method to detect it allows third parties to disenfranchise an Apple customer from doing what they have a right to do. Perhaps Apple does not want that liability.

Or perhaps Apple is standing up for the rights of their customers.

Wait, thats crazy talk. Lemmie go take my meds.

Re:Because they realized it was fruitless (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34519654)

Fruitless ....Apple ....

Ahahahahahahahah! Good one, man!

Re:Because they realized it was fruitless (1)

geogob (569250) | more than 3 years ago | (#34520342)

In the case of Apple inc., it's only partly fruitless...

Re:Because they realized it was fruitless (2)

Charliemopps (1157495) | more than 3 years ago | (#34519684)

You'd think at some point these companies would realize they're never going to be able to throw enough programming hours at a device to keep literally tens of thousands of basement tinkers from eventually hijacking it. You'd think they'd find it better to provide the jailbreak themselves so they can have SOME control over it. At least flag the device as jail-broken for the warrentee or not allowed on enterprise equipment...

Apple sells the jailbreak (1, Funny)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#34519716)

You'd think they'd find it better to provide the jailbreak themselves so they can have SOME control over it.

Apple sells the jailbreak; it just costs $600 for a Mac plus $99 per year.

Re:Apple sells the jailbreak (1)

StarHeart (27290) | more than 3 years ago | (#34519792)

I don't think that is a full jailbreak. It just lets you load your own applications. Plus if you want to distribute applications to regular phones you have to give them a 30% cut.

Re:Apple sells the jailbreak (2)

dogmatixpsych (786818) | more than 3 years ago | (#34519912)

Or, you receive a whole 70% of the profits by letting Apple promote (mostly passively unless you have a great app), host, transfer, and manage your apps. It's all in how you want to spin it. 30% to reach a market of millions and millions isn't bad.

Re:Apple sells the jailbreak (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34520056)

It's not "letting" you have no choice in the matter.

Re:Apple sells the jailbreak (1)

NiceGeek (126629) | more than 3 years ago | (#34520996)

You don't have to do business with them do you? You do have a choice.

Re:Apple sells the jailbreak (0)

sjames (1099) | more than 3 years ago | (#34521350)

Unless, of course, you want your iPhone to do something Apple would rather it not do. Then your app will go into a limbo of not being accepted or rejected until you give up and buy an Android phone.

Re:Because they realized it was fruitless (1)

Threni (635302) | more than 3 years ago | (#34519718)

Heh - that, or Jobs has finally realised that if he wants to not totally fail in the long term against Android he has to allow people to run both OSes on his phones. "Yeah, we're doing all we can to prevent people

Re:Because they realized it was fruitless (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34519734)

You'd think at some point these companies would realize they're never going to be able to throw enough programming hours at a device to keep literally tens of thousands of basement tinkers from eventually hijacking it.

Jailbreaking is generally done via security holes which should be fixed anyway. They are effectively getting lots of free labor as people search for these holes.

Obviously, it's a lot better for them if a security hole is found by a jailbreaker than a criminal.

Re:Because they realized it was fruitless (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34519762)

It was hacked within a matter of days. I don't think it ever managed to inconvenience any pirate.

Apple Relenting? (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 3 years ago | (#34519462)

So can we jai - unlock our iPhones now?

Re:Apple Relenting? (5, Informative)

HermMunster (972336) | more than 3 years ago | (#34519816)

I believe you could already legally unlock your phone.

You probably don't understand the intent of the DMCA. The purpose of it was to stop copyright infringement. It was never intended as a lock to protect a company's business practices. In fact, the write up from the Library of Congress specifically targetted that fact--that Apple had submitted their oral and written opposition asserting their attempts to protect their business model. The Library of Congress concluded that to mean that Apple wasn't really trying to protect the right's holder's copyright, instead they were trying to protect their business model.

This is what the Register (Library of Congress) stated (taken from the Ars Technica write-up):

"Apple is not concerned that the practice of jailbreaking will displace sales of its firmware or of iPhones," wrote the Register, explaining her thinking by running through the "four factors" of the fair use test. "Indeed, since one cannot engage in that practice unless one has acquired an iPhone, it would be difficult to make that argument. Rather, the harm that Apple fears is harm to its reputation. Apple is concerned that jailbreaking will breach the integrity of the iPhone's ecosystem. The Register concludes that such alleged adverse effects are not in the nature of the harm that the fourth fair use factor is intended to address."

Copyright protection is granted to protect the rights holder from illegal distribution of their content and not to prohibit owners of the hardware from doing other things with it once they own it.

Re:Apple Relenting? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34520378)

You probably don't understand the intent of the DMCA. The purpose of it was to stop copyright infringement. It was never intended as a lock to protect a company's business practices.

So you are saying it's not a lock to protect a company's bussiness practices, but a lock to protect *another* company's business practices. Oh, kay.

It sounds like in today's America the only freedom is the freedom to screw people, and only companies with deep pockets and criminal connections are allowed to exercise it. We are going back to the Dark Ages at cruise speed. Next you know you'll be beheaded for riding a horse without guild approved horseshoes.

Re:Apple Relenting? (1)

icebike (68054) | more than 3 years ago | (#34520462)

Did you not understand a word of what the GP stated?

Jailbreaking is not illegal, and is your right.

Apples objections were based on untenable arguments and had nothing to do with copyright infringements.

So Apple was wrong. Its still your right to jailbreak.

Apple is not obligated to honor the warranty on any jailbroken device. But that is an entirely separate issue.

Re:Apple Relenting? (1)

DarkVader (121278) | more than 3 years ago | (#34520726)

Except that Apple IS legally obligated to honor the warranty on any jailbroken device, unless the jailbreak itself caused the failure, at least in the US. They may claim otherwise, but Magnuson-Moss overrides their claim.

Re:Apple Relenting? (2)

icebike (68054) | more than 3 years ago | (#34520770)

What part of Magnuson-Moss puts the burden on the manufacturer to prove that a user modification was the cause of failure?

There are an infinite number of modifications that users might make. There is only one (or a very few) configurations tested, released and warranted by a manufacturer. How could any manufacturer possibly test an infinite number of combinations and permutations of unknown future hacks? There isn't enough time. There aren't enough engineers.

I suspect there is a little self serving interpretation of the law here, because unless parts are expected to be replaced due to wear and tear (tire on cars), its pretty standard in every industry in every country for the warranty to come off as soon you hack something.

Re:Apple Relenting? (1)

HermMunster (972336) | more than 3 years ago | (#34520634)

You need to reread, and to do so carefully.

Copyright is a legal concept designed to protect one's intellectual property. Apple wasn't defending their intellectual property, they were defending their business practice which isn't covered by copyright.

Re:Apple Relenting? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34520720)

You need to reread, and to do so carefully.

Copyright is a legal concept designed to protect one's intellectual property. Apple wasn't defending their intellectual property, they were defending their business practice which isn't covered by copyright.

They should have patened their business practices, instead.

The sad thing is, I'm not sure if that's a joke, or not.

Re:Apple Relenting? (1)

HermMunster (972336) | more than 3 years ago | (#34521016)

Business model patents are as onerous as software patents.

Re:Apple Relenting? (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 3 years ago | (#34521322)

What is sad is the fact that you had to type that message.

Why o why after having a computer where you can load whatever apps or OS do you have to use your own phone the way you want it. Ohhh GOD FORBID. ... which is why I do not own an Iphone.

How would you like your pc to be locked like this? Locking phones should be downright illegal as well as the cell phone companies charging $5,000 for a two year contract. Oh silly it is not that high ... well multiple $200 a month for 2 years? I bet most of you never saw that coming. This should be downright illegal for any company to lock their product. It comes to show money can buy you a monopoly on the cell phones and your network. I am just happy our pcs are not locked down like this. MS and Dell would LOVE this. I can guarentee that.

Rise up and do something about this. No one cares or is so ignorant they can not see what the harm is. If I ever did buy a phone in the future it will be an Andriod. Problem being the manufactors love to lock these of course. UGh

Re:Apple Relenting? (1)

Firehed (942385) | more than 3 years ago | (#34519918)

You certainly can try, but unlocking (to my understanding) requires reprogramming parts of the GSM chip's firmware. Jailbreaking is merely getting root access. Which allows you to unlock the phone, but you still have to know what you're doing - and if you screw it up, the phone is probably dead for good even if the rest of the device remains functional.

Even if you CAN unlock, do you really want to? In the US, your only frequency-compatible option is T-Mobile, and you often lose 3G capability too. It's probably much more useful internationally.

Re:Apple Relenting? (1)

HermMunster (972336) | more than 3 years ago | (#34520108)

I recently ceased my AT&T relationship after having an iPhone for nearly 3 years. Later I realized that I could take a simcard out of a cheap pay as you go cell phone, and that if I unlocked it I could use it on that carrier, albeit with limits. So, yes, some would. My 1st gen iPhone works perfectly (except battery life issues) and if I can make use of it at significantly (and I do mean significant) reduced cost I will.

Re:Apple Relenting? (3, Informative)

DarkVader (121278) | more than 3 years ago | (#34520780)

And you can.

PwnageTool has a very easy unlock option for the 1st gen iPhone, just check the box as you're configuring the jailbroken firmware. I think the version you want is 3.1.5, easily available on Pirate Bay (which is the official release location).

For later iPhones, it's simple enough to run UltraSn0w and unlock once you've jailbroken.

(I'm assuming from the tone of your post that you may well already know all of this, but GP appears to have no understanding of the ease of the process.)

Reasons (1)

SilverHatHacker (1381259) | more than 3 years ago | (#34519514)

the reasons for the decision are a mystery

Sudden outbreak of common sense was too far-fetched? It's none of their business if I jailbreak my phone.

Re:Reasons (2)

Microlith (54737) | more than 3 years ago | (#34519644)

Sudden outbreak of common sense

Nonsense, for fans of lock down "common sense" means that you do like the vast majority of people and leave control of the device to whoever locked it down. You're just a consumer, you shouldn't be doing that. You're supposed to visit the AppStore and consume.

It's a broken, twisted, and borderline abusive view on the world but that's what we have.

Re:Reasons (4, Interesting)

zn0k (1082797) | more than 3 years ago | (#34519730)

Damn skippy you don't jailbreak the phone that your workplace gave you. After all, they own that phone. Literally.

Which is what the article is actually about - functionality that allows enterprise software to detect whether a phone deployed through that enterprise has been jailbroken. It's a simple part of compliance testing of work issued equipment.

Re:Reasons (3, Interesting)

Microlith (54737) | more than 3 years ago | (#34519754)

Assuming that is the only basis upon which it was used. However the vast, vast majority of iPhones I've seen used with work systems are personal devices and as the first poster noted once a phone is Jailbroken it can lie to you about everything.

So they may be jailbreaking what is most likely their personal device, and they could easily load a hack that made it go "yeah I'm not jailbroken."

Re:Reasons (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 3 years ago | (#34520834)

and they could easily load a hack that made it go "yeah I'm not jailbroken."

There's an app for that!

Re:Reasons (1)

mr100percent (57156) | more than 3 years ago | (#34521376)

It seems like the API is running a checksum against OS files. How can you spoof that?

Re:Reasons (1)

Requiem18th (742389) | more than 3 years ago | (#34520248)

Am I the only one preoccupied that employers are shoving their employees with tracking devices? And given that you can't turn off or remove the battery form an iPhone what recourse these people have besides quitting their jobs? Dropping their phones in a metal lunch box?

Re:Reasons (1)

insertwackynamehere (891357) | more than 3 years ago | (#34520334)

How can't you turn off an iPhone? Did you lose your fingers or something?

Re:Reasons (1)

Requiem18th (742389) | more than 3 years ago | (#34520476)

Last time heard of it the iPhone still calls home when off so it's never really off.

Re:Reasons (1)

mattack2 (1165421) | more than 3 years ago | (#34520566)

[citation needed]

Hold down the top button for many seconds. A slider comes up saying "slide to power off".

When you power back on, it takes MUCH longer than waking the device, and you see it booting.

Re:Reasons (2)

Yaztromo (655250) | more than 3 years ago | (#34521378)

As another poster has mentioned, you can turn the iPhone off -- the standard state most customers think of as "off" only really turns off the display.

However, a much easier way of doing the same thing is to just put the iPhone in Airplane mode. That mode disables all of the wireless subsystems at the hardware level, preventing it from being able to "phone home" in any way, shape, or form (I think airlines and various international air transport authorities would have a problem if the iPhone randomly overrode this mode when it felt like it).

Yaz.

Re:Reasons (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 3 years ago | (#34520550)

And given that you can't turn off

Can't turn it off? Have you ever actually used one of these things?

tracking devices

Crackberries and WinMo had GPS before iPhones, and they also had the ability to run corporate code without hacks.

If your employer wants to track you, they can do it with any current-generation smart phone.

Re:Reasons (1)

netsharc (195805) | more than 3 years ago | (#34520406)

You're forgetting one part, when a user-land exploit has managed to jailbreak the phone and install malware onto it, essentially being a rogue node inside the corporation's nework. Of course it's only theoretical so far, but an all-in-one spying software that can run undetected in iPhones would fetch quite a sum of money. As for the user-land exploit, that's real: the Spirit jailbreak used a bug in the PDF rendering library that got it all the way into the kernel...

Re:Reasons (1)

netsharc (195805) | more than 3 years ago | (#34520444)

Did I word that properly? I meant when the bad guys (e.g. the Chinese government) has used a user-land exploit to queitly jailbreak and install malware on your/the employee's iPhone...

If they had not patched that PDF bug (which, I believe is the case for iPhoneOS 3 and less), the bad guy can just send the iPhone user an e-mail with a PDF attachment, "take a look at this". User clicks the PDF, and boom, the exploit can fake a reboot (show the white Apple) while it downloads and installs itself from the internet. The average user would just think "heh, sucky iPhone/heh that's weird" and not think anything of it...

Re:Reasons (1)

HermMunster (972336) | more than 3 years ago | (#34519862)

That's a bullshit response, and I have to call it.

Common sense says that it is your device and you do to it what you will once you own it. The vast majority of people feel that way too. Just imagine the automotive industry locking down their vehicles and claiming no one can perform maintenance or modification outside of their purview.

We are not just the customer, we are the owner of the device. We "were" a customer but we became the owner once the transaction was complete. I am not renting the phone/ipod/ipad, I am buying it by trading my money in exchange.

Re:Reasons (3)

Microlith (54737) | more than 3 years ago | (#34519986)

Common sense says that it is your device and you do to it what you will once you own it.

You aren't looking at it from the skewed perspective of a carrier or vendor like Apple.

The vast majority of people feel that way too.

They may, but the vendors are banking on their ignorance.

I am not renting the phone/ipod/ipad, I am buying it by trading my money in exchange.

Sure, but you aren't the kind of customer that companies selling locked down devices want.

Re:Reasons (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 3 years ago | (#34520686)

I am buying it by trading my money in exchange.

This is true. However, I bought it with the full knowledge of what I was getting into. I don't have a smartphone, but I do have an iPod Touch. I had no need for jailbreaking, so I don't really care that the device is locked down.

Would I rather that Apple didn't lock the device down? Sure. But until a competent competitor comes around, they are the best in town and worth the trade-off. If someone made a polished Android media player, maybe I would buy that instead. There's an Archos device that you can hack (jailbreak?) to get to the Android store, but the touch screen is resistive so it can't compete. I also found the video playback confusing - apparently you have to pay extra for some codecs? Anyway, it seemed inferior.

Re:Reasons (3, Informative)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34519736)

Indeed. Personally, I like how Google handles it on the Nexus One. Attempting to unlock it pops up a screen explaining that if you continue unlocking it that they are no longer responsible for what the software does. Which is fair enough, if they no longer have any control over the software, then it's a reasonable trade off.

But with the Android phones there's little reason to unlock it, unless one wants to run a custom UI, as you can already convenient install apps from elsewhere.

Re:Reasons (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#34519794)

You missed the biggest reason, to run the latest OS version. Hardware vendors and carriers make updates slow and infrequent. On top of this they will stop updating a phone soon after release to ensure you upgrade to a newer model and get another contract.

I say this as someone who own a Moto Droid and for the most part likes it. I probably won't get another android device other than a pure google one like the Nexus line. Other than that I might get a meego/meebo device.

Re:Reasons (1)

Karlt1 (231423) | more than 3 years ago | (#34520412)

You missed the biggest reason, to run the latest OS version. Hardware vendors and carriers make updates slow and infrequent. On top of this they will stop updating a phone soon after release to ensure you upgrade to a newer model and get another contract.

Original iPhone -- released in June 2007 and was capable of running the latest OS until Jun 2010
iPhone 3G -- released in June 2008, still capable of running the latest OS (with limitations)
iPhone 3GS -- released in June 2009, capable of running the latest OS.

No waiting on the carrier to decide when you can upgrade. Apple released the OS and everyone worldwide could upgrade the same day.

Re:Reasons (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#34520690)

Your point is?

Wow, their device was allowed to live 3 years instead of 2. There are G1s running the latest and greatest android right now.

Re:Reasons (1)

Fulcrum of Evil (560260) | more than 3 years ago | (#34521256)

The thing still lives, it just doesn't get the new fancy stuff. Is that such a problem?

Re:Reasons (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34520698)

That's more a matter of Apple not allowing the carrier to use a custom interface. The main reason why it takes so long for a lot of those phones to get the latest release, is that the carrier feels the need to include a custom interface.

Re:Reasons (1)

whoop (194) | more than 3 years ago | (#34521052)

All Android phones - released from 2008 to present, capable of running any Android OS when the manufacturer no longer wishes to provide updates. Forever. Long live the root hackers. Google provides the OS. Manufacturers provide kernel mods / device drivers. The community takes care of keeping things up-to-date.

Apple phones - when we drop support, you need to be getting a new phone anyway, I mean come on, you don't want to be a lame-o with an old iphone, do you? Think what your neighbors will say of you.

Re:Reasons (1)

Microlith (54737) | more than 3 years ago | (#34519800)

I like it better on the N900, where I add a repository and install a package. My warranty is still intact, even. In any case, all phones should do at least what the Nexus One does.

Re:Reasons (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#34519898)

Any idea if meego/meebo/whatever crazy name they pick next will continue this trend?

Re:Reasons (1)

Microlith (54737) | more than 3 years ago | (#34519936)

It's always been MeeGo. Currently the N900 runs Maemo, which has been around since the 770 back in 2005. Whether or not that trend continues depends on who uses it. Nokia hopefully will continue it on whatever successors running MeeGo appear. No guarantees for other vendors.

Re:Reasons (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34520184)

MeeGo is an OS.

meebo is an instant messenger in your browser. It used to be nice but now it's kind of like talking to your friends over commercials.

Re:Reasons (1)

HermMunster (972336) | more than 3 years ago | (#34521028)

That still doesn't void the warranty. It just means that OEM wouldn't be obligated to provide technical support.

Re:Reasons (1)

zn0k (1082797) | more than 3 years ago | (#34519784)

> It's none of their business if I jailbreak my phone.

Agreed. It is, however, your company's business if you jailbreak the phone they gave you. THEIR phone. Which is what the article is about - enterprise software detecting whether you jailbroke THEIR phone.

Re:Reasons (1)

HermMunster (972336) | more than 3 years ago | (#34519828)

That's my thought too. Developers should not be looking at my phone for any purpose other than running programs. What I do outside their tiny little sandbox is none of their business.

Re:Reasons (4, Interesting)

cmdahler (1428601) | more than 3 years ago | (#34519842)

Sigh. You really ought to RTFA, otherwise you just come across as a dumbshit. This story has nothing to do with preventing you from doing what you want with your i-Device. It has everything to do with an enterprise-provided and -owned device reporting itself to the enterprise-owner that you as the non-owner-user have jailbroken your i-Device, thus causing a security hole the size of the one in your backside in the enterprise's system. And yes, Virginia, the enterprise that owns said device does have the right to know if you're being said dumbshit and jailbreaking a device that you don't even own.

Re:Reasons (4, Funny)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#34519962)

I realize you are new here, but it is a long and proud slashdot tradion to not read the linked article. Many really hardcore slashdot users do not even read the summary.

Re:Reasons (3, Funny)

grub (11606) | more than 3 years ago | (#34520508)


Slashdot has summaries?

Re:Reasons (1)

HermMunster (972336) | more than 3 years ago | (#34520180)

He never said he was worried about them preventing, rather he said it was none of their business and that they shouldn't even be looking. To me it means that it's a breach of privacy and of good faith.

The implication was that Apple removed it for whatever reason (most likely to protect themselves), yet program authors could look anyway using their own methodology. That implies they can and will. Making the determination of whether a phone is jailbroken is not their business.

Its your phone (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 3 years ago | (#34520136)

But its not your network.

Re:Its your phone (1)

Microlith (54737) | more than 3 years ago | (#34520198)

Irrelevant. All my phone needs is to communicate via the protocol used for the network and have some means of authenticating. Given a SIM and a compliant radio, the carrier can STFU and GBTW.

My phone not being locked down has nothing whatsoever to do with that.

Strategic move (1)

damnfuct (861910) | more than 3 years ago | (#34519566)

The android platform seems to be gaining a large market share recently, and I don't doubt that this action is a knee-jerk because of it.

Android pod touch (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#34519670)

The android platform seems to be gaining a large market share recently

Android is gaining on iPhone, but not on iPod touch, and it's all Google's fault. Google reportedly requires all devices that can access Android Market to have a camera, GPS, and other things more suited for a telephone than a PDA, leaving the pure-PDA market to Apple.

Re:Android pod touch (2)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34519748)

I might be missing something, but the iPod touch isn't a phone. And I'm not really sure why Google would even want to compete with it. Right now they're making phones and are moving into the tablet market. And they're making moves on netbooks as well.

And don't forget about Google TV. Seems like trying to compete with the iPod touch would be a distraction, and they haven't demonstrated any interest in it up to this point.

the iPod Touch is the iPad Mini (3, Insightful)

rsborg (111459) | more than 3 years ago | (#34519980)

I might be missing something, but the iPod touch isn't a phone. And I'm not really sure why Google would even want to compete with it.

ie, it's basically a tiny tablet. It's mobile computing just like the iPhone (but without a phone or mobile data). Seems like Google does want to compete or be involved in that market (see Galaxy Tab, Android Honeycomb, supposed hundreds of tablet models next year, etc).

The iPod Touch is a great device and probably accounts for a bit of the iPhone success in that folks who can't afford (or are too young) to own their own cell phone can still participate in the AppStore goodness.

Perhaps Google isn't competing because it would pretty much be a full-out declaration of war against Apple, and that would be bad for business.

Re:Android pod touch (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 3 years ago | (#34520710)

And I'm not really sure why Google would even want to compete with it.

It's a locked-down internet device. Not only can you get content without searching the wider web, but Apple even gets all of the ad revenue. Google wants you to think "Web!" when you want a book, movie, or song. Not the iBook store or iTunes... Google has zero chance to get a cut that way. Even the weather can be fetched without a single Adword visit. :)

Re:Android pod touch (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#34519814)

You keep saying that, yet many folks have pointed out devices you could be using. The pure PDA market is dead. the iPod touch is not a PDA, it is just the nicest iPod. That it happens to act as a PDA is only a side effect.

Android does not mean you get market access, you can use other stores. Heck, you could buy an old iPhone not get a phone plan and install android, if you wanted.

Re:Android pod touch (1)

Daniel Phillips (238627) | more than 3 years ago | (#34520126)

Android is gaining on iPhone, but not on iPod touch, and it's all Google's fault. Google reportedly requires all devices that can access Android Market to have a camera, GPS, and other things more suited for a telephone than a PDA, leaving the pure-PDA market to Apple.

What? Those are all things I want in a "pure PDA". The reason Android isn't gaining on iPad (I *think* that's what you really meant) is that there aren't very many tablet products released yet. On the other hand, Samsung quickly sold over a million Android tablets. I would call that gaining.

Class action? (4, Interesting)

mewsenews (251487) | more than 3 years ago | (#34519582)

Jailbreaking became legally protected recently. Disabling functionality when a jailbreak is detected seems like it might open Apple to a class action lawsuit.

I'm sure they're legally allowed to say that jailbreaking voids the warranty, but I'm not sure they're willing to risk crippling a jailbreaker's device with an api flag.

"Sorry, you can't play our game because you jailbroke your phone" -- if Apple encouraged app developers to do this, things could get nasty.

IANAL - this post is total speculation

Re:Class action? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34519636)

[sarcasm]That would be crazy... Imagine if pc software vendors tried to pull something like that. What if they prevented their software from running when certain other software was detected? Surely no one would stand for that...[/sacrcasm]

Re:Class action? (2)

rabbit994 (686936) | more than 3 years ago | (#34519646)

I think API was more for IT Admins so they could disable phones or throw them off ActiveSync server if they get jailbroken. I know we only support Android with TouchDown after we found users installing No Lock application on their Android phones that would remove password requirement. Our sales group decided that locking screen after 10 minutes was too annoying.

Re:Class action? (1)

mewsenews (251487) | more than 3 years ago | (#34519680)

I guess that's what I get for not reading the article. If a company owns the phones, they can do whatever monitoring they want on them. It might simply have been a case of Apple realizing that a call to is_this_device_jailbroken() would be the first thing any new jailbreaks subvert..

Re:Class action? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#34519824)

How does touchdown get around that?

Re:Class action? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#34519838)

Tell them to install screeble instead, that way the phone stays unlocked while in the range of orientation that it has when you hold it.

Microsoft has got away with it (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#34519690)

I'm sure they're legally allowed to say that jailbreaking voids the warranty, but I'm not sure they're willing to risk crippling a jailbreaker's device with an api flag.

Microsoft has got away with it on Xbox and Xbox 360, banning jailbreakers from Xbox Live.

Re:Microsoft has got away with it (1)

anss123 (985305) | more than 3 years ago | (#34519766)

On the xbox 360 they hack the DVD drive as, AFAIK, it's not jailbroken yet.

Now that ARM CPUs is starting to support virtualization I expect to see tougher protection on cell phones, similar to what's on the PS3 and 360, though it's a bit expensive since you need to embed a ROM on the CPU.

Re:Microsoft has got away with it (1)

metalmaster (1005171) | more than 3 years ago | (#34519884)

MS gets away with it because the Xbox isnt a phone. The exception to the DMCA seems to be (smart)phone specific. Additionally, MS has a bigger interest in keeping up security for the sake of their online community. Modders quickly become cheaters who become a nuisance to those who play fairly

Re:Class action? (1)

EvanED (569694) | more than 3 years ago | (#34519782)

Jailbreaking became legally protected recently. Disabling functionality when a jailbreak is detected seems like it might open Apple to a class action lawsuit.

Only for a much narrower sense of "legally protected" than you seem to think. The protection bars prosecution under the DMCA, but there's absolutely nothing that says phone manufacturers have to make it easy for you or can't take anti-jailbreaking countermeasures.

I'm sure they're legally allowed to say that jailbreaking voids the warranty, but I'm not sure they're willing to risk crippling a jailbreaker's device with an api flag.

I'm actually not so sure of the first part, though IANAL either. I'd be much more inclined to think the complete opposite of what you indicate: I wouldn't be surprised if Apple wouldn't mind that in the end.

Re:Class action? (1)

HermMunster (972336) | more than 3 years ago | (#34519966)

I think it could be argued that by undoing a jailbreak would put Apple (or any entity doing so) in legal peril. What technically is being said is that since it is legal to jailbreak it would be illegal to violate the integrity of the device, which the DMCA exemption clearly identifies as the consumer's property.

Re:Class action? (1)

captor01 (1956878) | more than 3 years ago | (#34519880)

I agree, why would the app developers agree to this. It's a failed mechanism that would just be overthrown by new programs anyways. But obviously Apple want to continue to control their products as much as possible.

Re:Class action? (0, Troll)

HermMunster (972336) | more than 3 years ago | (#34519900)

Actually there's plenty of case-law that says that modification must be significant enough to have cause the damage resulting in the need to have the warranty honored.

So, technically, Apple has no grounds to claim loss of warranty when the modification wasn't significant enough to cause the type of damage that would cause the consumer to invoke the warranty.

And, in case you didn't know it, the warranty on those Apple devices is 9 months (at least for the iPhone). That's shorter than most in the electronics field.

Re:Class action? (2)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 3 years ago | (#34520016)

And, in case you didn't know it, the warranty on those Apple devices is 9 months (at least for the iPhone). That's shorter than most in the electronics field.

Uh, last I checked, the iPhone warranty is one year [apple.com] .

Re:Class action? (1)

HermMunster (972336) | more than 3 years ago | (#34520070)

The original iPhone warranty was 9 months. When I had to get my iPhone replaced Apple claimed a 9 month warranty. Because of the nature of the problem with the phone (dead areas on the screen) and due to the fact that Apple had know of the issue before manufacture they replaced it free of charge.

So, I get the "9 months" because that's what Apple told me the warranty was back then.

Re:Class action? (4, Informative)

Alrescha (50745) | more than 3 years ago | (#34520820)

"The original iPhone warranty was 9 months"

The leaflet that came in the box with my original iPhone (Summer 2007) says one year.

A.

You're incorrect about iPhone warranty length (3, Informative)

rsborg (111459) | more than 3 years ago | (#34520036)

Where did you get 9 months? It's 1 year, and has been as long as I can remember. See link [apple.com] .

Apple's Limited Warranty for iPhone covers your iPhone for one year from the date of original purchase. Apple's Limited Warranty begins on the date that the iPhone was originally purchased. To determine your warranty coverage, enter the serial number of your iPhone in the Online Service Assistant section on the Apple Support site. Apple may need to examine your proof of purchase document to verify your iPhone's warranty status.

Re:Class action? (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 3 years ago | (#34520202)

That is the most likely answer. That and the "cat and mouse game" gets expensive after a while too.

Re:Class action? (1)

index0 (1868500) | more than 3 years ago | (#34520844)

Only legal if you do it yourself. There was a recent case of a "terrorist" that was selling jailbroken phones.

ENOUGH WITH QUIETLY (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34519632)

Can anyone do anything anymore without it being labeled 'quietly'?!

Anonymous Coward, quietly posting.

Android did it first ! (1)

noddyxoi (1001532) | more than 3 years ago | (#34519662)

Android did it first !

where's the like button... (1)

ritzer (934174) | more than 3 years ago | (#34519706)

'nough said -- this site needs a "like" button.

Re:where's the like button... (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#34519852)

No it does not.Get off my lawn, then go back to dig or where ever you came from.

drop or hide? (2)

metalmaster (1005171) | more than 3 years ago | (#34519932)

are ya sure it hasn't just been retooled to become

super_secret_function()

Re:drop or hide? (4, Funny)

thenextstevejobs (1586847) | more than 3 years ago | (#34520570)

are ya sure it hasn't just been retooled to become super_secret_function()

I don't think you've seen the iOS SDK.

I'd guess something more like [NSReallyInternalDeviceIdiomDetector superSecretFunction:host:port:withDelegate:inSection:byAppendingString:context]

Re:drop or hide? (-1, Offtopic)

vipgoto (1936430) | more than 3 years ago | (#34521026)

hi,
everybody, take your time and a little bit. Now I introduce a website http://www.vipgoto.com/ [vipgoto.com] is specialized in online service on Jordan air max oakland raiders $30--39; Ed Hardy AF JUICY POLO Bikini $20; Handbags (Coach lv fendi d&g) $30 T shirts (Polo ,edhardy,lacoste) $15 Jean(True Religion,edhardy,coogi) $30 Sunglasses (Oakey,coach,gucci,Armaini) $15 New era cap $15 Bikini (Ed hardy,polo) $20 ACCEPT PYAPAL PAYMENT AND CREDIT CARDS DELIVERY TO YOU DOOR TO DOOR Welcome to: http://www.vipgoto.com/ [vipgoto.com]
UGG Boots [vipgoto.com]
Cheap Sweater [vipgoto.com]
Jordans Shoes [vipgoto.com]
Watch [vipgoto.com]
Wholesale Fashion scarf [vipgoto.com]
Wholesale Coat Jackets [vipgoto.com]
Wholesale Women Jeans [vipgoto.com]
We specialized in the exportation of sport shoes and other
products(clothing, bag,sunglasses,watches,belts,etc )which
have great enjoyed popularty in the world market Many of
our goods are on sales ,we can guarantee the crediblity by
Pay-pal and delivery time .we would like to make a long termship.
Wholesale Fashion Sunglasses [vipgoto.com]
mbt shoes [vipgoto.com]
Chanel handbag [vipgoto.com]
NFL Jerseys [vipgoto.com]
Cap [vipgoto.com]
Nike Shoes [vipgoto.com] =(b..r..a..n..d.)s.h.o.e.s.
Christian Louboutin boots [vipgoto.com]
Moncler Dowm Jackets [vipgoto.com]
Tiffany Jewelry [vipgoto.com]
c.l.o.t.h.i.n.g,j.e.a.n,,h.a.n.d.b.a.g,(f.r.e.e)s.h.i.p.p.i.n.g
Wholesale Yves Saint Laurent Shoes [vipgoto.com]
>>>------I love you! ----> http://www.vipgoto.com/ [vipgoto.com]
Believe you will love it. Accept paypal or credit card and free shipping.

Android muscling in on their territory? (1)

Mr0bvious (968303) | more than 3 years ago | (#34520030)

I think Android is becoming a threat to Apple iP?d products. Apple don't have anything new to offer at the moment, they need to give their users something..

YOU FAIL IT (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34520150)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?