Apple bans hackers from App Store(news.cnet.com)
news.cnet.com
Apple bans hackers from App Store
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10454364-93.html?tag=TOCmoreStories.0
6 comments
Does anyone know why Apple has not invoked DMCA against jailbreaking? Is it because DMCA does not cover how the jailbreak hacks work or is it something else.
I don't know much about the inner workings of jailbreak, nor have an iPhone, but given the way Apple protects its IP, I'm really curious.
I don't know much about the inner workings of jailbreak, nor have an iPhone, but given the way Apple protects its IP, I'm really curious.
Apple can serve DMCA notices till they're blue in the face. Outside the US people will just laugh them off.
Not to mention that if they start prosecuting their customers that's terrible PR, and the ones most likely to jailbreak are the ones recommending iPhones to their friends and family (i.e. the technically inclined), and also the ones who would make a huge fuss about it. It really would do them no good at all.
Not to mention that if they start prosecuting their customers that's terrible PR, and the ones most likely to jailbreak are the ones recommending iPhones to their friends and family (i.e. the technically inclined), and also the ones who would make a huge fuss about it. It really would do them no good at all.
Does anyone know why Apple has not invoked DMCA against jailbreaking?
They have, where the DMCA is applicable. The thing is, contrary to popular belief, the DMCA does not give them any sort of right to sue an individual for the act of jailbreaking itself. It is, after all, your phone. But it does come into play when people distribute the hacks to do so, as they involve breaking Apple's copy protections for the express purpose of modifying Apple's copyrighted firmware.
By analogy: A publisher does not have the right to stop you from cutting up a book and re-arranging the pages, but they do have the right to stop you from distributing such a book, even in modified form.
They have, where the DMCA is applicable. The thing is, contrary to popular belief, the DMCA does not give them any sort of right to sue an individual for the act of jailbreaking itself. It is, after all, your phone. But it does come into play when people distribute the hacks to do so, as they involve breaking Apple's copy protections for the express purpose of modifying Apple's copyrighted firmware.
By analogy: A publisher does not have the right to stop you from cutting up a book and re-arranging the pages, but they do have the right to stop you from distributing such a book, even in modified form.
Why do people bother with iPhones? Seems like that in the time it takes to find exploits, you could just fix all the parts of Android you don't like instead.
Because when the iPhone was released it provided an experience which did not exist elsewhere. I had tried smart phones up to iPhone and they were a total pain to use. Apple hit the mark with a phone that did the following:
1. Was a decent phone with a good address book
2. Provided a good web surfing experience
3. Provided a good email service
4. Fixed voicemail through visual voicemail
5. Made the carriers provide unlimited data
6. Integrated mapping with GPS
7. Music player
This combination made it a killer device.
1. Was a decent phone with a good address book
2. Provided a good web surfing experience
3. Provided a good email service
4. Fixed voicemail through visual voicemail
5. Made the carriers provide unlimited data
6. Integrated mapping with GPS
7. Music player
This combination made it a killer device.
Completely agree. Apple is becoming more and more user unfriendly. Why pay for that kind of abuse?
Because the abuse is precisely what makes the ecosystem as user-friendly as it is. They want any iPhone user to be able to pick up your iPhone and have it behave the way they expect. They don't want users to be scared of them the way they are of their PCs. They don't want the massive fragmentation present on Android. They don't want all the coolest software that would otherwise be AppStore-friendly coming out via user-hostile ad-hoc channels.
The beatings will continue until usability improves.
The beatings will continue until usability improves.
I fail to see what censoring dictionaries has to do with user friendliness. I also doubt that slowing down software updates in order to hunt down infringing icons helps user friendliness or security. Deleting songs from iPods without even a warning when the iPod is connected to the wrong computer is also rather pointless in terms of user friendliness. It's about copyright. So let's be clear about that. Much of what Apple does has to do with control not user friendliness.
But anyway, in some areas you're right. Sometimes less choice makes a device easier to use. At the same time it lowers the threshold at wich I cannot do something that I absolutely must to do. At that point "ease of use" becomes irrelevant.
That's why Apple has become utterly irrelevant to me. Obviously, many people will never hit that threshold, so Apple is going to keep on selling a lot of devices. I just can't understand how anyone calling himself (or herself) a hacker can accept the kind of limitations imposed by Apple, which are hugely more restrictive than anything Microsoft came up with even in their most evil moments.
But anyway, in some areas you're right. Sometimes less choice makes a device easier to use. At the same time it lowers the threshold at wich I cannot do something that I absolutely must to do. At that point "ease of use" becomes irrelevant.
That's why Apple has become utterly irrelevant to me. Obviously, many people will never hit that threshold, so Apple is going to keep on selling a lot of devices. I just can't understand how anyone calling himself (or herself) a hacker can accept the kind of limitations imposed by Apple, which are hugely more restrictive than anything Microsoft came up with even in their most evil moments.
This doesn't really make sense. It's fine for Apple to release their phones a certain way because of those concerns. It's not fine for them to log into my phone and reset everything I've done because it doesn't match their overall vision for the device. It's my phone and I can do what I want to it.
If that doesn't match with Apple's philosophy, they should at least be upfront with the idea that you're leasing the device and that Apple reserves the right to override anything you do to it because it doesn't match their "vision".
If only there was a way Apple could ensure there were no stickers, skins, or markings on individual iPhones. Then they could really make sure no one got confused and thought the iPhone was ugly!
If that doesn't match with Apple's philosophy, they should at least be upfront with the idea that you're leasing the device and that Apple reserves the right to override anything you do to it because it doesn't match their "vision".
If only there was a way Apple could ensure there were no stickers, skins, or markings on individual iPhones. Then they could really make sure no one got confused and thought the iPhone was ugly!
Apple/carriers don't do OTA firmware updates on the iPhone. It's your choice to install the update or not.
While it's better that the device isn't updated automatically, it's the same effect; I assume Apple bills these updates as essential for security and functionality features, so one may assume it's necessary and install over their stuff, perhaps unknowingly (if a friend administered the jailbreak, or if they didn't pay much attention and just assume it works with updates).
It's really just not worth the hassle, honestly. I will never own an iPhone primarily for these reasons.
It's really just not worth the hassle, honestly. I will never own an iPhone primarily for these reasons.
I'd say the abuse is making the ecosystem less user-friendly. Users want things like Google Voice, or the ability for third party music apps (Pandora, Last.FM, etc) to play in the background. Blocking those things isn't user friendly. I'd also love to see an example of this mythical "massive fragmentation" that supposedly exists in the Android platform.
Hang on. How is the correction of a security bug in any way shape or form "abusing" users of iPhones. Frankly, if you want to reproach Apple on the subject of security holes, it's because they sometimes take a long time getting around to fix them. The fact that they fixed this one relatively rapidly deserves praise, not criticism.
It's really only a security hole for them, afaik anyway. Are there known exploits besides the jailbreaking tools? Considering what we go through to jailbreak I'd be pretty surprised if there was an OTA exploit.
What a pointless trollbaity comment.
Apart from the things which are completely unfixable by design - e.g. the iPhone's utterly standard screen size, touchscreen and lack of keyboard which means any app will work and which isn't something that can be retrofitted onto Android, and the things which it doesn't even make sense to talk about fixing, such as the already available third party apps, and the things which can't be implemented without violating Apple patents or Apple license agreements with third party companies or reverse engineering Apple sync protocols...
Apart from that, even if we agree that the amount of work is exactly the same (which I don't), that still leaves the implication that people who are interested in finding highly prized low-level exploits in iPhone software would be equally interested in (and skilled at) putting little appreciated internals and UI polish on a completely different system. Which is certainly not a given.
And that's assuming that the Android project leads would accept arbitrary and widespread changes.
Apart from the things which are completely unfixable by design - e.g. the iPhone's utterly standard screen size, touchscreen and lack of keyboard which means any app will work and which isn't something that can be retrofitted onto Android, and the things which it doesn't even make sense to talk about fixing, such as the already available third party apps, and the things which can't be implemented without violating Apple patents or Apple license agreements with third party companies or reverse engineering Apple sync protocols...
Apart from that, even if we agree that the amount of work is exactly the same (which I don't), that still leaves the implication that people who are interested in finding highly prized low-level exploits in iPhone software would be equally interested in (and skilled at) putting little appreciated internals and UI polish on a completely different system. Which is certainly not a given.
And that's assuming that the Android project leads would accept arbitrary and widespread changes.
Other hackers have also reported that their Apple IDs have been banned. It seems that this action of Apple's is merely a warning, as these hackers can always just create another Apple ID and access the App Store that way. It would be a lot harsher if Apple decided to ban their devices.
Your App Store purchases are locked to your Apple ID via FairPlay DRM, right? While indeed less serious than a device ban, that puts all your existing apps (or other non-music purchases) in a pretty uncertain state.
Your App Store purchases are locked to your Apple ID via FairPlay DRM, right? While indeed less serious than a device ban, that puts all your existing apps (or other non-music purchases) in a pretty uncertain state.
Jailbreaking allows the installation of cracked apps, which basically makes the App Store DRM a non-issue.
Only if you're okay with breaking the law* and standing on ethically questionable ground* just to use an app that you bought.
If your ISP gets a DMCA notice because you were downloading a cracked version of an app that you already own, do you think they're going to accept the explanation that 'it's okay, I already own it'? What about in the context of some of the proposed 'three strikes' laws? Nasty potential minefield.
* Depending on interpretation, of course.
If your ISP gets a DMCA notice because you were downloading a cracked version of an app that you already own, do you think they're going to accept the explanation that 'it's okay, I already own it'? What about in the context of some of the proposed 'three strikes' laws? Nasty potential minefield.
* Depending on interpretation, of course.
Your ISP will only get a DMCA notice if you were UPLOADING a cracked version of an app -- which you would be via most current p2p, but the vast majority of App Store piracy is hosted on Rapidshare clones via HTTP.
Hmm, well, this is different I think. Most jailbreakers aren't doing it so that they can violate copyright and use apps without the consent of the rights holder, most jailbreak so that they can install apps from non-approved sources, use the phone on non-approved networks, and gain extra leverage over the device (SSH, etc.).
To me, that just sounds like doing what you want with a device you own, and telling Apple that you appreciate the sentiment but don't need their babysitting.
When you download a movie or a game from an unauthorized source, that's copyright infringement. When you download an exploit that lets you use your phone in the ways you want, that's just downloading an exploit; it doesn't transmit any substantial intellectual property owned by any other party, so I don't understand your complaint or comparison, really.
The one provision which jailbreaking may violate is the DMCA's restriction on circumvention of "copy protection". Technically, sharing any mechanism to circumvent "copy protection" is illegal in the United States. I don't think that jailbreaking qualifies as a circumvention of copy protection on balance, though, because most people aren't doing it to make copies, but of course that depends on the judge.
To me, that just sounds like doing what you want with a device you own, and telling Apple that you appreciate the sentiment but don't need their babysitting.
When you download a movie or a game from an unauthorized source, that's copyright infringement. When you download an exploit that lets you use your phone in the ways you want, that's just downloading an exploit; it doesn't transmit any substantial intellectual property owned by any other party, so I don't understand your complaint or comparison, really.
The one provision which jailbreaking may violate is the DMCA's restriction on circumvention of "copy protection". Technically, sharing any mechanism to circumvent "copy protection" is illegal in the United States. I don't think that jailbreaking qualifies as a circumvention of copy protection on balance, though, because most people aren't doing it to make copies, but of course that depends on the judge.
Do we actually have any statistics on what 'most people' are jailbreaking their iPhones for, or is this just guesswork? I am quite prepares to believe that most of the hackers who actually create the jailbreaks are doing so for ideological reasons, or for technical satisfaction, but what about all the people who just install the jailbreaks?
I jailbroke my iPod Touch in order to disable the auto-rotation "feature". I've never installed a cracked app.
Has it actually been confirmed that these people are really 'banned'?
This is the same message that you get if you enter (or, more importantly, someone else enters) your password wrongly multiple times: http://support.apple.com/kb/TS2446
This is the same message that you get if you enter (or, more importantly, someone else enters) your password wrongly multiple times: http://support.apple.com/kb/TS2446
I'm far from taking sides, but I am surprised it took Apple so long to start this type of banning. I am not sure how it benefits Apple in the long run, but I am sure that if the App Store were my business I probably would have done this. And sooner.
Things like the 3.1.3 update are precisely why my next phone will run Android, not iPhone OS.
why would you bother if you're unsure it would even help in the long run?
i see it as a net loss for apple. you're not going to deter whatever "deviant" behavior you think exists on current jailbroken iphones, whatever that may be. if people want to download free apps, they're going to do it. if anything, i'd think you're hurting your image by turning against hackers like this.
will apple recover any lost profit because they paid their own engineers to build these fixes? who knows, all i know is that another jailbreak will be available soon. people who want to control their own devices will find a way to do it.
i see it as a net loss for apple. you're not going to deter whatever "deviant" behavior you think exists on current jailbroken iphones, whatever that may be. if people want to download free apps, they're going to do it. if anything, i'd think you're hurting your image by turning against hackers like this.
will apple recover any lost profit because they paid their own engineers to build these fixes? who knows, all i know is that another jailbreak will be available soon. people who want to control their own devices will find a way to do it.
This warning applies to owners of 3GS iPod touch 3 iPod touch 2 with serial MC Any 3g unlockers
iPhone OS 3.1.3 is now out from Apple. Supposedly it fixes some very rare battery reporting issues on 3gs devices with a specific problem (It does not make your battery last longer). There are no new features. The release only stops jailbreaks. That's right. No new features.
DO NOT UPDATE YOU WILL BE SORRY.
Currently there is no jailbreak for this firmware. Unofficial sources have confirmed that they have patched up the method we used to jailbreak 3.1.2 so you will not be able to jailbreak. If you update you will lose all your jailbreak apps and will not be able to get them back. In other words, updating means you lose a lot of stuff in return for almost nothing back. In addition, there is no ETA on a jailbreak for 3.1.3. It may never be jailbroken. It is likely that they (dev team, geohot) will not waste another hole on 3.1.3. They will most likely hold it for the bigger update that will come with the release of the iPad and iPhone 4.0. Unlockers - you cannot unlock the new baseband. This would apply to those 3g users that can jailbreak 3g. If you update, you will not be able to unlock.
To summarize: - Update adds NO NEW FEATURES, do not update.