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 Lifts Ban On the Word "Jailbreak"

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the sweet-of-them dept.

IOS 113

Gunkerty Jeb writes "After banning the word 'jailbreak' from its app store and music library, Apple [Friday] reversed course and again permits the term — slang for hacking into a device to download unauthorized content — to appear on iTunes and its App Store. On Thursday bloggers noticed Apple had censored the word, using the Thin Lizzy album 'Jailbreak' as an example. For awhile, the title was listed as 'J******k' in Apple's music library, at least its U.S. version. In other instances, digital content continued to bear the full name Jailbreak."

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

Apple... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40057527)

What a ridiculous and petty company. The very antithesis of America. It has more in common with Stalinist Russia.

Re:Apple... (3, Funny)

Severus Snape (2376318) | more than 2 years ago | (#40057561)

Yes, because the American government is so lovely.

Re:Apple... (1)

bhagwad (1426855) | more than 2 years ago | (#40057615)

Not really an excuse there.

Re:Apple... (0)

sjames (1099) | more than 2 years ago | (#40058005)

Who said anything about government? It too seems to be trying it's hardest to align with Stalin, only without the pretense of "to each according to his need".

Re:Apple... (4, Interesting)

cupantae (1304123) | more than 2 years ago | (#40057741)

I'm not criticising American ideals or the American people, but this kind of behaviour is made possible by unregulated free-market capitalism. America is not at that extreme, but it is surely closer to it than any other country.
Since Stalinist Russia was all about centralisation, the very fact that Apple is a private company means it has little in common with it.

Pre-empting moderators:
Off-topic: I was responding to this post, which is itself a response to the story.
Troll/Flamebait: I don't think anyone here should be defending Apple in this case. This is a very real and transparent attempt to limit the freedoms of their users which conflict with their own financial interests.

Re:Apple... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40057907)

no. this is made possible by freedom. you can't have freedom without a free market.

Re:Apple... (1, Flamebait)

freeweaver (2548146) | more than 2 years ago | (#40058137)

please tell me your joking?

I can't believe anyone would be stupid enough to associate freedom with censorship?

Orwell strikes again!

Re:Apple... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40059037)

No, he is not joking. Under certain constraints -- in particular, if you want to use their infrastructure, Apple has the freedom to censor you. You are free to kick rocks if you don't like it. You are not free to break the law to stop it.

Re:Apple... (-1, Offtopic)

Theophany (2519296) | more than 2 years ago | (#40057975)

-1 Disagree it is then ;)

Re:Apple... (4, Insightful)

bky1701 (979071) | more than 2 years ago | (#40058075)

You're probably getting modded offtopic because you did not clearly link Apple to this bit:

"I'm not criticising American ideals or the American people, but this kind of behaviour is made possible by unregulated free-market capitalism. America is not at that extreme, but it is surely closer to it than any other country. Since Stalinist Russia was all about centralisation, the very fact that Apple is a private company means it has little in common with it."

So allow me: Apple is a perfect example of what unregulated free markets result in. All those liberarians who want to vote with your feet... look at how many people are quite happy to take censorship and control far out-stepping the federal government, because of a shiny product. Apple has the very real potential of eventually reaching the critical mass of Microsoft, where you are FORCED to do business with them, or be unable to use digital devices. If that happens, then sorry, I'd rather the government than Apple. Corporations do not value your freedom, and for the most part, neither do their consumers; that's why we have regulations and anti-monopoly laws.

Re:Apple... (2, Insightful)

0123456 (636235) | more than 2 years ago | (#40058395)

So allow me: Apple is a perfect example of what unregulated free markets result in.

Yeah, because copyrights, patents and the other sticks that Apple uses to beat the competition are products of an 'unregulated free market'.

Apple is a perfect example of what government-mandated monopolies result in.

Re:Apple... (2)

Pf0tzenpfritz (1402005) | more than 2 years ago | (#40059241)

Exept the fact that Apple does not hold any "government-mandated monopolies". AT&T de facto did. Some defense contractors might (I don't even say they do!) But Apple? "Government mandated monopolies"? I actually hate Apple. They're worse than MS ever were, IMHO. I'd call them a dozen nasty things, but not that one.

Re:Apple... (1)

sFurbo (1361249) | more than 2 years ago | (#40062453)

Patents, trademarks and copyright are also government-mandated monopolies.

Re:Apple... (1)

bky1701 (979071) | more than 2 years ago | (#40059893)

Do you honestly believe Apple would be unable to abuse the market if not for copyright and patents?

Not that copyrights and patents are good; see my signature. They simply are a different matter. I'll remind you, it was corporations that pushed copyright and patent laws for the past hundred years, not random citizens or special interest groups.

Re:Apple... (1, Interesting)

chonglibloodsport (1270740) | more than 2 years ago | (#40062301)

Corporations wouldn't even exist if it weren't for governments passing laws to create them. A truly unregulated market consists only of individuals with full responsibility for their actions.

Re:Apple... (1)

manwargi (1361031) | more than 2 years ago | (#40060637)

Power does what it wants, no matter what the system of government.

SHHHHHH! (0)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 2 years ago | (#40058463)

All those liberarians who want to vote with your feet... look at how many people are quite happy to take censorship and control far out-stepping the federal government, because of a shiny product.

This comment is long overdue.

Re:Apple... (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40058747)

You're probably getting modded offtopic because you did not clearly link Apple to this bit:

"I'm not criticising American ideals or the American people, but this kind of behaviour is made possible by unregulated free-market capitalism. America is not at that extreme, but it is surely closer to it than any other country. Since Stalinist Russia was all about centralisation, the very fact that Apple is a private company means it has little in common with it."

So allow me: Apple is a perfect example of what unregulated free markets result in. All those liberarians who want to vote with your feet... look at how many people are quite happy to take censorship and control far out-stepping the federal government, because of a shiny product. Apple has the very real potential of eventually reaching the critical mass of Microsoft, where you are FORCED to do business with them, or be unable to use digital devices. If that happens, then sorry, I'd rather the government than Apple. Corporations do not value your freedom, and for the most part, neither do their consumers; that's why we have regulations and anti-monopoly laws.

The problem is that, in the US (as well as many other countries), the government is owned by the corporations.

Until the election process is separated from the influence of large campaign donors, I don't see any possibility of change.
--
dk

Re:Apple... (4, Interesting)

freeweaver (2548146) | more than 2 years ago | (#40058127)

"I'm not criticising American ideals or the American people, but this kind of behaviour is made possible by unregulated free-market capitalism."

No my friend its not. I seriously doubt *anyone* wishes to be told what they can or can't say or do. And considering a true free market is regulated by peoples wishes, and their wishes are to not be censored, you'd be *very* hard pushed to suggest this is a result of a free market.

What we have now is nothing but heavily regulated, deeply dysfunctional *corporatism*.

Re:Apple... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40058139)

While I agree that that sort of market can lead to problems like those with Apple, America is certainly not the most free economy. In fact, according to the Index of Economic Freedoms, America barely makes the top ten freest markets:

http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking

Re:Apple... (4, Insightful)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 2 years ago | (#40058149)

I'm not criticising American ideals or the American people, but this kind of behaviour is made possible by unregulated free-market capitalism.

Nope. It's made possible by regulated near-free-market capitalism and worse. If it were a truly unregulated free-market, there wouldn't be things like IP that Apple could use to prevent competitors from cloning Apple hardware and software and selling at a lower price or adopting a more free (as in speech) version of iTunes service. Only the power of law keeps the competitors at bay.

Re:Apple... (1, Insightful)

drkstr1 (2072368) | more than 2 years ago | (#40058505)

I'm not criticising American ideals or the American people, but this kind of behaviour is made possible by unregulated free-market capitalism.

Nope. It's made possible by regulated near-free-market capitalism and worse. If it were a truly unregulated free-market, there wouldn't be things like IP that Apple could use to prevent competitors from cloning Apple hardware and software and selling at a lower price or adopting a more free (as in speech) version of iTunes service. Only the power of law keeps the competitors at bay.

^ Mod parent up if you value freedom. Most people confuse Libertarians with neo cons. In reality, corpratisim is the exact thing Libertarians are against. A government shouldn't give us regulations, it should give us the tools to regulate ourselves against concentrated power, regardless of its form.

Re:Apple... (5, Insightful)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 2 years ago | (#40058627)

Most people confuse Libertarians with neo cons. In reality, corpratisim is the exact thing Libertarians are against.

In all fairness, you should probably tell the self-styled "Libertarians" that, first. Judging by the pro-corporate dribble most of them echo incessantly, they missed the memo.

Re:Apple... (2, Insightful)

drkstr1 (2072368) | more than 2 years ago | (#40058827)

In all fairness, you should probably tell the self-styled "Libertarians" that, first. Judging by the pro-corporate dribble most of them echo incessantly, they missed the memo.

Funny thing is, the only pro-corporate dribble I hear is from others, talking about the "views" of Libertarians. I personally have never met a Libertarian that was pro-corpratisim. Please do not confuse us for the neo-cons. They like to borrow our rhetoric, but really they are the antithesis of Libertarian philosophy.

Re:Apple... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40059323)

Re:Apple... (-1, Offtopic)

juliannarobert (2588995) | more than 2 years ago | (#40062275)

There's also accentuated came wedding party gowns offered for example colored came gowns, a came underlay, a gown having a came belt or ribbon, along with a summer wedding gowns UK [articlesnatch.com] .

Re:Apple... (2)

bryan1945 (301828) | more than 2 years ago | (#40060463)

You should be modded "douchebag" just for the "Pre-empting moderators" bit.

Re:Apple... (1)

cupantae (1304123) | more than 2 years ago | (#40062353)

Haha, yeah I know!

Re:Apple... (1)

hendrikboom (1001110) | more than 2 years ago | (#40060725)

Any monopolistic corporation has strong motivation to become like Stalinist Russia. Stalinist Russia was just one corporation, and used its monopoly ruthlessly. What keeps most large corporations from achieving that kind of power is government regulation.

-- hendrtik

Re:Apple... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40062207)

I think we're closer here in the Philippines.

Re:Apple... (-1, Offtopic)

juliannarobert (2588995) | more than 2 years ago | (#40062261)

There's also accentuated came wedding party gowns offered for example colored came gowns, a came underlay, a gown having a came belt or ribbon, along with a summer wedding gowns UK [articlesnatch.com] .

Nuspeak (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40057549)

[jailbreak] - slang for hacking into a device to download unauthorized content

WTF?

Re:Nuspeak (2)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 2 years ago | (#40057893)

Well, the media has to continue to play the game as good little followers, demonizing anyone that doesn't play by the 'rules'.

Just like hackers are bad.
*nix is a tool for said hackers
Copying any file is piracy.
And of course, god help you if you want to buy software or music not in the 'store'....

Re:Nuspeak (-1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 2 years ago | (#40058037)

Strawmen ahoy.

Re:Nuspeak (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40058091)

Do you have an actual argument? Thought not.

Re:Nuspeak (0)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 2 years ago | (#40058953)

That Ive never seen the media claim that "copying any file is piracy", or that "nix is a tool for hackers", or that using third party stores is somehow illegal.

As for "hackers are bad", seems like you are one of those folks who insist on using a definition that may be technically correct but will inevitably confuse all laypersons. The common definition of a hacker now refers to black-hats; get over it.

Re:Nuspeak (1)

isilrion (814117) | more than 2 years ago | (#40059071)

As for "hackers are bad", seems like you are one of those folks who insist on using a definition that may be technically correct but will inevitably confuse all laypersons. The common definition of a hacker now refers to black-hats; get over it.

Thus proving nurb432's original comment:

Well, the media has to continue to play the game as good little followers, demonizing anyone that doesn't play by the 'rules'.

Re:Nuspeak (4, Insightful)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 2 years ago | (#40059727)

Just like hackers are bad.
*nix is a tool for said hackers

OS X is Unix, so...

Re:Nuspeak (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40059603)

[gaolbreake] - olde speake for the above.

Re:Nuspeak (1)

thoughtlover (83833) | more than 2 years ago | (#40060937)

[jailbreak] - slang for hacking into a device to download unauthorized content

WTF?

More like: slang for the ability to download and run unsigned apps because Apple just didn't like that app (or developer) for whatever unexplained reason -this after extensive costs in dollars and time.

Re:Nuspeak (1)

Pseudonym (62607) | more than 2 years ago | (#40062153)

That's the same thing, only you spelled out that the content is "unauthorized" by Apple, as opposed to a legally-constituted authority.

Re:Nuspeak (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40062365)

[jailbreak] - slang for hacking into a device to download unauthorized content

WTF?

I Lawled also

I don't get it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40057559)

I don't get it -- does Apple think they're stopping people from finding Jailbreak apps in their own app store? If there are jailbreak apps in their app store, why doesn't Apple just delete them?

I wonder how AC/DC weathered this storm. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40057565)

It is their store let them do what they want if you don't like it don't use it!
I personally vote no with my wallet.

Re:I wonder how AC/DC weathered this storm. (5, Insightful)

bhagwad (1426855) | more than 2 years ago | (#40057627)

Nothing wrong with calling them out as jerks in addition to not buying any of their products.

Re:I wonder how AC/DC weathered this storm. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40057659)

Nothing wrong with calling them out as jerks in addition to not buying any of their products.

True, but i in no means was justifying their evilness, just saying don't give them any free advice. Let them continue down this path and destroy themselves properly.

Re:I wonder how AC/DC weathered this storm. (3, Informative)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 2 years ago | (#40057733)

Don't forget telling others why they should vote the same way.

Jobs left (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40057577)

Jobs left, but the reality distortion field remained much like a halo.

Re:Jobs left (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40058115)

Actually a recent Harvard study [slideshare.net] found out that Job's storied "reality distortion field" was actually just repressed homosexuality.

Go figure eh?

About time! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40057605)

> Graft pumpkin to yourself so that you have one hideous arm

Hanlon's Razor (2, Funny)

BasilBrush (643681) | more than 2 years ago | (#40057617)

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

Re:Hanlon's Razor (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40057681)

Yet discounting malice without even verifying is the height of stupidity.

Re:Hanlon's Razor (-1, Flamebait)

spire3661 (1038968) | more than 2 years ago | (#40057703)

Obviously you dont understand the saying. People are far more often stupid vs malefic

Re:Hanlon's Razor (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40057805)

Obviously you dont understand the saying. People are far more often stupid vs malefic

Obviously you don't understand the saying. Malicious peoples are far more likely to disguise themselves as incompetent.

Re:Hanlon's Razor (1)

digitig (1056110) | more than 2 years ago | (#40058047)

Obviously you dont understand the saying. People are far more often stupid vs malefic

Obviously you don't understand the saying. Malicious peoples are far more likely to disguise themselves as incompetent.

Whereas stupid people are likely to try to appear benign and fail (even if they are benign). Hanlon's razor still works.

Re:Hanlon's Razor (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | more than 2 years ago | (#40058239)

The entirety of this argument rests on the word 'adequately'. It completely qualifies the rest of the sentence and makes the OPs point moot.

Re:Hanlon's Razor (2)

QuasiSteve (2042606) | more than 2 years ago | (#40057829)

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

Problem is, they are often the indistinguishable.

Say facebook decides to track their users physical whereabouts and makes them automatically 'like' a profile that is attached to an establishment they entered. People revolt (well, hopefully), and then.. what?

Was it malice? Well it certainly was intentional. I'm sure they didn't mean any harm, just that people took offense to it.
Was it stupidity to think that people wouldn't take offense to it? Perhaps, but certainly the implementation wasn't the result of that stupidity. The stupidity there is only tangentially related.

In this particular case, what would the stupidity be? That the censoring was applied to the wrong item (an album, rather than, say an app that offers jailbreaking)? Because that still smells an awful lot like malice to me.

The only way it could be actual stupidity is if whoever writes their censorship words list was meant to enter e.g. 'cocksucker' and ended up entering 'jailbreak' instead. A common typo, I'm sure.

Re:Hanlon's Razor (2)

hjf (703092) | more than 2 years ago | (#40058261)

Sorry, i didn't understand your example. Can you use a car analogy? Thanks.

Re:Hanlon's Razor (3, Interesting)

VortexCortex (1117377) | more than 2 years ago | (#40059155)

Sorry, i didn't understand your example. Can you use a car analogy? Thanks.

Let's say you did something the mechanic didn't like, say you had a different mechanic work on your car. The next time he changes your oil, he adds a special oil plug that only he has the tool to remove. Sometime later, you go to change your own oil and you can't, even though you rightfully should be able to so -- That prick is artificially forcing you to come back to him. Now, It COULD have been a mistake, he could have just grabbed the wrong oil plug, but it's highly unlikely attributed to just stupidity -- They had a motive for malice, and had to go out of his way to use a special wrench to install the incorrect plug.

People "jailbreak" their phones, Indeed, we got a DMCA exemption to do so, and it's legal. Apple doesn't like that so they censor the term making it harder to jail break, and the effect is that more people keep using their service instead of going to another app store. Now, it COULD have been a mistake: Apple could have accidentally entered a term in its censor list, but it's highly unlikely attributed to a stupid accident -- They had a motive for malice, the term censored just happens to be the thing that lets you use someone else's service, and they had to go out of their way to make sure censored terms apply to everything, not just apps in their app store which they already screened for offensive terms...

Re:Hanlon's Razor (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40059567)

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

Problem is, they are often the indistinguishable.

Say facebook decides to track their users physical whereabouts and makes them automatically 'like' a profile that is attached to an establishment they entered. People revolt (well, hopefully), and then.. what?

Was it malice? Well it certainly was intentional. I'm sure they didn't mean any harm, just that people took offense to it.
Was it stupidity to think that people wouldn't take offense to it? Perhaps, but certainly the implementation wasn't the result of that stupidity. The stupidity there is only tangentially related.

In this particular case, what would the stupidity be? That the censoring was applied to the wrong item (an album, rather than, say an app that offers jailbreaking)? Because that still smells an awful lot like malice to me.

The only way it could be actual stupidity is if whoever writes their censorship words list was meant to enter e.g. 'cocksucker' and ended up entering 'jailbreak' instead. A common typo, I'm sure.

Absolutely right, it sure was intentional. But what would Apple gain from censoring "jailbreak" inside their walled garden. So who would intentionally censor that word but someone who wants to make Apple look malicious/stupid? Think about that.

Re:Hanlon's Razor (1)

cultiv8 (1660093) | more than 2 years ago | (#40057909)

Never attribute to stupidity that which is adequately explained by corporate greed.

There, fixed.

Re:Hanlon's Razor (1)

couchslug (175151) | more than 2 years ago | (#40057917)

The two are not mutually exclusive.

Re:Hanlon's Razor (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40058603)

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by malicious stupidity.

Re:Hanlon's Razor (1)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 2 years ago | (#40058863)

it was malice done with stupidity.

malice in pretending it's a good idea to ban words from their store.

stupidity in choosing the words.

stupid malice in combining the censorship to try to hide information about jailbreaking in instances where things had nothing to do with the "jailbreaking" they were trying to ban access to, malice in using a system meant to protect people from offensive things to achieve that. end result is just more people knowing the right word to google, even those who wouldn't have cared shit about doing so but just like rock.

just imagine if apple ran a search engine.

This had so much potential... (1)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 2 years ago | (#40057687)

They should have called it a common word, like "Orange".

Re:This had so much potential... (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40057761)

They should have called it a common word, like "Orange".

Yeah, but that would've made comparisons difficult.

Re:This had so much potential... (3, Funny)

Sulphur (1548251) | more than 2 years ago | (#40057951)

They should have called it a common word, like "Orange".

Yeah, but that would've made comparisons difficult.

True.

Also there was an Orange computer at one time. They got peeled and squeezed out of business though.

Re:This had so much potential... (1)

billcarson (2438218) | more than 2 years ago | (#40058899)

There is a brand of france telecome that is called `Orange'.
Never thought of it: "Orange now provides Apple devices"...

Call the interns! (1)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 2 years ago | (#40057689)

A crack squad of interns paid to review these things before the automated censor kicks in seems like an easy way to avoid embarrassment. Come on Apple, do a little "job creation" and save face at the same time.

Re:Call the interns! (1)

JustOK (667959) | more than 2 years ago | (#40057943)

*paid* interns? You're fired.

Pathetic.. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40057715)

I'm sure Apple fanboys like evil_aaronm will fawn all over this, but it goes to show you just how pathetic this company and its buttboy users really are.

Re:Pathetic.. (1, Insightful)

macs4all (973270) | more than 2 years ago | (#40057863)

I'm sure Apple fanboys like evil_aaronm will fawn all over this, but it goes to show you just how pathetic this company and its buttboy users really are.

Wrong.

I, too, rolled my eyes at Apple making a common-use word like "Jailbreak" an "unword", as if it was going to keep knowledge of iOS Jailbreaks hidden from public view!!! Utterly ridiculous, and it smacks of overzealous middle-management.

My suspicion is that this was not properly "vetted" as a decision, or surely-to-Diety SOMEone would have pointed out not only the absurdity of the idea, but also the negative press that such a ridiculously heavy-handed example of censorship (yes, it's their store and all, but...) would visit upon them.

HOWEVER, one thing I have seen over my nearly 40 years (since 1976) as an Apple user and occasional developer, is that Apple really DOES listen to its customers and media (including blogs like Slashdot) (and unlike some companies) (I'm looking at you, Microsoft!), OFTEN modifies or, as in this case, completely reverses itself when it is clear that the majority thinks it is being stupid.

Everyone (including multibillion-dollar corporations) makes mistakes. But the true measure of the man (or company) lies in their ability to realize when they have made an error, and quickly and decisively act to correct that error.

And this is what Apple has done.

Re:Pathetic.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40057921)

This censorship is ricockulous.

A friend of mine is in a band that released an album with the word "whorehouse" in the title. It got censored on iTunes Music Store.

Yet somehow, you can view the "Best Little Whorehouse in Texas" album title unrestricted.

Fuck censorship. Just because you don't like something doesn't give you the right to block others from seeing it.

Re:Pathetic.. (2)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 2 years ago | (#40057969)

I'm not sure that it was a case of listening to their customers so much as realising the mistake and reversing it. I saw this story a couple of days ago, and Apple had fixed it on the same day it was reported. I think it was a case of automated censorship gone awry. Whether they have totally eliminated the censorship or merely confined it back to the original box it was meant to operate in (the App Store one presumes), is another thing entirely.

Either way, censoring words really doesn't get you very far.

Re:Pathetic.. (1)

NoZart (961808) | more than 2 years ago | (#40058131)

--- I, too, rolled my eyes at Apple making a common-use word like "Jailbreak" an "unword", ----

It was an unword from the beginning. It's not a "jailbreak" it's a goddamn security hole.

Re:Pathetic.. (1)

LocalH (28506) | more than 2 years ago | (#40059085)

When the security is meant to prevent you from using the device in the way that you wish to as the lawful owner, then it's a good thing to have a way to break that security.

Re:Pathetic.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40058869)

What? Multi-billion dollar mega corporations make MISTAKES!?! Say it isn't so!

And I thought the 2008 meltdown was all due to poor people buying houses they couldn't pay for.

So THATS what that word was (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40057737)

Please tell me I'm not the only one who was thinking Thin Lizzy had an album called 'Jailfuck'.

Re:So THATS what that word was (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40057823)

Please tell me I'm not the only one who was thinking Thin Lizzy had an album called 'Jailfuck'.

Nope. I checked with everyone on /. (and Ars and Digg, too) and you are, in fact, the only one who was thinking that.

First they want to control your speech (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40057739)

First they want to tell you what you can and cannot say. Then they want to tell you what you can and cannot do. Then they will want to tell you what you can and cannot think.

Re:First they want to control your speech (2)

cultiv8 (1660093) | more than 2 years ago | (#40057987)

and then, profit!

Re:First they want to control your speech (4, Informative)

bky1701 (979071) | more than 2 years ago | (#40058051)

"First they want to tell you what you can and cannot say. Then they want to tell you what you can and cannot do. Then they will want to tell you what you can and cannot think."

You realize this is Apple we're talking about, right? I think they followed that list exactly in reverse;

> Reality distortion field, army of fanboys ready to stand up for the stupidest decisions (I am still amazed at the instant turnover that was the end to the years of "PowerPC is better!" when Apple moved to iX86), heavy marketing to make you believe it is something it isn't.

> Walled garden that goes almost totally unquestioned by users. An unfortunate tendency for Apple to offer "official" (and mangled) versions of open source libraries, making use of the real ones more difficult. Heavily locked down hardware, even on desktops, compared to non-Apple computers.

> THEN censorship like this.

I am not really sure what they hoped to gain, making it quite possible this specific case was just a screwup of some middle-manager. However, that does not absolve Apple of their other sins; it simply illustrates how much unwarranted power Apple wields, with no oversight, over a growing segment of the computing world. Truly frightening.

Re:First they want to control your speech (4, Insightful)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 2 years ago | (#40058749)

"First they want to tell you what you can and cannot say. Then they want to tell you what you can and cannot do. Then they will want to tell you what you can and cannot think."

You realize this is Apple we're talking about, right? I think they followed that list exactly in reverse;

> Reality distortion field, army of fanboys ready to stand up for the stupidest decisions (I am still amazed at the instant turnover that was the end to the years of "PowerPC is better!" when Apple moved to iX86), heavy marketing to make you believe it is something it isn't.

> Walled garden that goes almost totally unquestioned by users. An unfortunate tendency for Apple to offer "official" (and mangled) versions of open source libraries, making use of the real ones more difficult. Heavily locked down hardware, even on desktops, compared to non-Apple computers.

> THEN censorship like this.

I am not really sure what they hoped to gain, making it quite possible this specific case was just a screwup of some middle-manager. However, that does not absolve Apple of their other sins; it simply illustrates how much unwarranted power Apple wields, with no oversight, over a growing segment of the computing world. Truly frightening.

Goodness me. Quite a bit to get to here.

"PowerPC is better! followed by switch to x86"

Yes, PowerPC *was* better at the time the commercials ran. They weren't quite as fast as Apple made them out (the Pentium had a snail on it) but at the time PPC did have an advantage. This advantage quickly evaporated, however, to an almost laughable degree - especially regarding memory bandwidth, and the brick wall that IBM ran into with the PPC970. In the meantime, Intel made enormous strides with x86 and left PPC in the dust, so Apple switched. The fact that the facts bore this out meant that people weren't still shouting about how PPC was better - they changed their opinion based on facts. How this is controversial to you is quite perplexing, unless you were expecting their heads to explode because "the Apple mothership" now held a contradictory position to one it had previously expressed.

Not sure how you can bash Apple or Apple users for that one, given that they did the exact opposite of what most of you haters claim Apple users do (blindly stick to things they a mindless fans of). x86 moves ahead of PPC so much that Apple went though a potentially painful total architecture switch - a non-trivial thing to do.

"Heavily locked down hardware, even on desktops"

Mhhmmm. People often trot this one out alongside the utterly diametrically opposed argument that Macs are just standard PC parts in a nice case. It's not really possible for both to be true. For the record, it's much closer to the latter.

I'd also question "heavily locked down" when all of the various pieces are pretty standard - you can swap out pretty much all of the parts as you need to on most of their machines. They switched from fixed CPUs and GPUs on the iMac to socketed whitebox Intel CPUs (you can buy an i5 or i7 off newegg and drop it in), and MXM 3.0 for the GPU (you can buy an MXM graphics card and slot it in, although they are rare and expensive). RAM is standard, hard drives are standard, optical drives are standard, the logic board uses PCIe, USB, SATA, etc.

Honestly, other than the custom firmware they had on iMac hard drives to be able to read the temperature (that was factory designed to be switched back to "standard" SATA behaviour with a jumper setting if a non-Apple drive was installed), I'm having a hard time seeing how "heavily locked down" applies? Maybe if you gave me some examples?

"Official "mangled' versions of OS libraries"

Examples?

Re:First they want to control your speech (1)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 2 years ago | (#40058921)

the shit it was better. or it was "better" but was slower in just about everything? it was "better" because they had a nice deep sleep fast wakeup on their lappies, which had nothing to do with it being ppc really? same way how arm is now "better" except that it's not better in any measurable way?

hard time understanding heavily locked down? ON A FUCKING ARTICLE ABOUT HOW THEY HAD BANNED THE WORD JAILBREAK for a while, come on sissyfitpants. you've always been able to switch gpu's on more expensive macs for a very, very expensive price for a very, very limited selection.

btw apples osx display drivers suck ass, they really do.

(I'm guessing mangled versions of os libraries refers to having libraries you're not supposed to use if you intend to sell your application to be used on machines that weren't jailbreaked - which of course applies on iOS, which is really the biggest fault in your rebuttal since the walled garden etc. remarks were really about iOS, so that you can buy a powermac and run linux on it doesn't really work as a big point there, the main bread and butter computers apple now sells don't come with a keyboard or a one button shitmouse, they come with a touchscreen and they're really, really locked down which is exactly why jailbreaking is a tabu for some mac people trying to stay all official about things).

Re:First they want to control your speech (2)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 2 years ago | (#40059065)

My goodness, so much hate.

"One button shitmouse." Hah. I can almost ignore anything you just said, since it's clearly not based on facts, but basing my opinion on one clearly hilariously outdated piece of misinformation would be wrong. You're also ignoring all of the salient points about my PPC vs x86 argument, but whatever; it did contain some quite long words.

You question my assertion that "heavily locked down" applies to the hardware that Apple sells, then claim this article is about them banning the word jailbreak (hint: they didn't, they had a word censor, which is a different thing, but it was incorrectly applied in the store - a problem that was fixed on the same day it arose, not in response to negative feedback as the summary claims). They sell iOS devices that are locked down. We all know this. I did not question that. I questioned the original commenter's assertion "even on desktops" (go check, it's right there, I'll wait), and the proceeded to give a selection of arguments as to why that statement was incorrect.

I assume that you've simply failed to understand my post or that you lack reading comprehension. I suspect that you merely skimmed my post and then rushed to post a frothing reply designed to "own" me or something. I assume that's what you kids do on the internet, right? You should probably look at the points I am addressing before you come steaming in so that you don't look quite so silly.

Also, the word is "taboo", although you did use it correctly. I assume it's a word you've heard frequently but not seen written out very often.

Re:First they want to control your speech (1)

_xeno_ (155264) | more than 2 years ago | (#40061645)

"One button shitmouse." Hah. I can almost ignore anything you just said, since it's clearly not based on facts

Wait, Apple makes a two-button mouse now? Or do you just count "right click" support since you can press control? Or are you trying to pretend that the Apple "Mightily Random" Mouse isn't a shitmouse? Because the one I had would just randomly decide you're right clicking if your finger got too close to the right side, and the last time I tried one in a store they'd added this horrible multi-touch that made it so that just touching the mouse did random things.

Thankfully I can now ignore everything you said thanks to your own logic.

Also, the word is "taboo", although you did use it correctly.

"Tabu" is a legitimate alternate spelling of "taboo." Look it up.

Re:First they want to control your speech (1)

uglyduckling (103926) | more than 2 years ago | (#40062041)

Either you had a faulty mouse or faulty fingers. I've been using my "Mighty Mouse" for over a year and it's great.

Re:First they want to control your speech (1)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 2 years ago | (#40062591)

Err, yes... Apple has been making two button mice and input peripherals for some years now. I know this is slashdot, but how is this news to you?

The Mighty Mouse (with the terrible scroll ball that gunks up and stops working ) and Magic Mouse (with the touch sensitive top surface) both have right click without needing to use the control key. The touch sensitive controls on the surface can be disabled or tweaked easily in the settings if you find them too sensitive or just plain useless - I know people who have both reactions.

The trackpad (both the Magic Trackpad for desktop machines and the built in trackpads on laptops) also support right clicking without using the control key. You just click in the bottom right (or left, or triple tap, or tap and hold... fully customisable etc)

Or you could just plug in any USB mouse you choose. I use a Microsoft USB mouse with a scroll wheel alongside my Magic Trackpad because it's better for gaming.

My "logic" is that reality shows the "one button shitmouse" comment to be utterly, utterly false - not really sure what else to say?

Re:First they want to control your speech (-1, Offtopic)

juliannarobert (2588995) | more than 2 years ago | (#40062297)

Shop for your best 2012 wedding dresses [articlesnatch.com] at noviamor.co.uk.

Re:First they want to control your speech (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 2 years ago | (#40058053)

Only while accessing their store. They don't control what you say outside of that.

Re:First they want to control your speech (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40058691)

How long until Apple no longer ships a compiler or tool-chain with their desktop PCs? How long until Apple clamps down on "unauthorized" general-purpose use of their equipment? Not long, I bet.

Their goal appears to be "if it doesn't make Apple money, then it should be able to be sold or run on Apple devices". Thank God and blind luck that when I came to the fork in the road, I never went down the Apple trail.

Re:First they want to control your speech (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40058725)

Dammit. I meant "should NOT be able to be sold or run on Apple devices". Sorry guys.

Re:First they want to control your speech (1)

niktemadur (793971) | more than 2 years ago | (#40059469)

Then they will want to tell you what you can and cannot think.

Think different (but within the narrow parameters we've set).
So go ahead, break some rules! (except don't break any rules)

What. (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40057751)

>slang for hacking into a device to download unauthorized content

What.

Re:What. (4, Informative)

bky1701 (979071) | more than 2 years ago | (#40058055)

The reality distortion field works on words, too.

Why I quit OpenBSD and went with Apple (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40057891)

Re:Why I quit OpenBSD and went with Apple (1)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 2 years ago | (#40057979)

Trollaxor, you've really become pathetic as your depressed mind has degenerated. Before at least you had pseudo-technical arguments against OpenBSD, now you have to make up wild nonsensical lies. Get some psychiatric help for your obsessions.

"J*******k" for unrelated contexts (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 2 years ago | (#40058041)

Someone at A***e has their h**d up their a*s.

Why would they uncensor a word like Jailbreak? (2)

idbeholda (2405958) | more than 2 years ago | (#40058791)

Won't someone please think of the children?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?