iPhone user = banker
banker as in more money than sense.
Would-be iPhone jailbreakers and unlockers around the globe can breathe a sigh of relief today. Not only has the latest iPhone baseband update been unlocked, but the hack's young developer is determined that it can be accessed for free. Since the iPhone was first released in June 2007, many iPhone owners have argued that after …
banker as in more money than sense.
The kid should take the money and buy a working keyboard.
"as in more money than sense"
Or maybe it's just "more money than you". Jealous much? :-P
I love locked in hardware. I love spending hundreds on state of the art stuff just to then have to spend hundreds more making it work with massive restrictions. As good as apple stuff is, it suffers from a massive superiority complex.
Its not just Apple. All the networks do it. You are locked to there network for the duration of the contract.
He's got more morals than me... I'd have snatched that up in under a second.
You can't take your money with you when you die. Might as well do something with it while your alive.
Paris because she has lots of money too.
And clearly you're an ignorant banker too then.
I personally, along with many other people I know, find the iPhone to be a fantastic phone for everything asked of it.
I'm not convinced ElReg should go into detailing steps of licence-breaking. Convince me before just adding the umpteenth post on jailbreak. Or ja1lbreak apparently.
It's a freaking phone --- if it does what you want at a fair price and conditions, you buy it; if not, you don't. The end. You want to "play hacker" (and show your incompetence by using default SSH passwords) for no clear reason (even more pointless apps, now without any control about what backdoors people put in there??), go ahead, sites enough to read it from.
After months of captivity in the Apple dungeon, I'm finally free of the shackles.. mwah ha haaaaa.....
Because Apple gets a cut of all revenues from official iPhone service providers.
You can say that about any mobile phone user Paul.
We all know a text message doesn't cost 12p to send, in reality it's probably a fraction of a penny. All mobile users are being screwed and yet we seem to think mobiles are essential.
Almost all contract mobiles are locked to a network, Apple just only lets users install software through their store. We all know the sort of people who dislike this, they're called pirates.
There was an interesting article from an iPhone game developer who hid a piracy flag in his software, this allowed him to see who was running a legit copy when the game submitted its high score to his servers. By looking at the device IDs he found 75% were running pirated copies and not a single person who ran the pirated version went on to buy it. So much for 'try before you buy'.
Almost everyone I know who runs Tomtom on their mobile has a pirate copy, it's no wonder Tomtom went into hardware.
It never ceases to amaze me that people will buy products from manufacturers who want to treat them like crap, then try and work around the restrictions.
If you're an Apple fan, or like the device then fair enough -- buy one. But unlocking the iPhone makes you anti-Apple, so why did you buy an Apple product?
Sorry, you've lost me there.
Now, I have an iPhone and I have no intention of jailbreaking it - I remember the days of installing stuff on my Windows Mobile phones and ending up with serious stability problems - I like the feeling that at least *some* degree of testing has taken place before the apps are released.
However, I can completely understand people wanting an iPhone, and I can completely understand some of them wanting more freedom than they are currently offered. I see no problem with this concept.
Equally I see no problem with buying products from a company that you are anti. I would suggest a good deal of Microsoft customer's are also anti-Microsoft. Really it comes down to a decision about whether your desire to have the new shiny is more than your hatred of the company that makes it. Again this is not really a difficult concept to grasp, IMHO.
We bought an Apple product because it's s*** hot, Einstein. We want great products without being bent over and "familiarised". And we shall have what we want, make no mistake - no amount of whining from greedy corporates is going to make us accept a rodgering through anti-consumer moves like carrier exclusivity. Apple et al need to understand that there's a line. Cross at your peril.
Apple's attitude is the main reason I won't buy an iPhone. Not ever. Not even if they open up when forced to do so by the competition.
In a year or so, Google (Android) and/or Nokia (Maemo) will catch up, and Apple will then discover what it's store of goodwill is worth. (That's negative goodwill, negative worth).
is just a flimsy excuse, most people jailbreak so they don't have to pay for apps.
Lee, I just used Blackra1n (first time JB as I use my iPhone for developement) and it took all of 5 seconds. I wont be installing any extra stuff on my device except for Backgrounder.
If you use Spotify, IM or IRC then this app will change your iphone use so much for the better.
first rule about appulo...
I've jailbroken and unlocked a damaged phone I was given. The guy paid for an upgrade and his old phone literally went in the bin.
He found it and I replaced the damaged screen and unlocked it to use on T-Mobile?? Contracts are paid, nothing iffy, and there is nothing i'm interested in installing. I have several paid for apps installed.
There is a legit reason to unlock, apple should acknowledge and accept this. It's also more relevant for them that other phone suppliers as they rarely offer the functionality of the iPhone.
Why is there a hardware rather than provider lock in there anyway? Surely the contracts still have to be signed and completed or paid off? Where does the supply of unlockable iphones come from?
I think we all have our own reasons to love jailbreaking. Mine is to get a decent 3G service, which makes the world of difference to the user experience. I'm happy with the app store, as I have yet to see the killer jailbreaked app. This talk of appulous is intriguing me though... ;)
You are all a load of bankers as in Cockney rhyming - why else do you have pictures of Paris on your iPhone.
I think that it's a good thing the iPhone can be unlocked, this will make sure that providers won't be so keen to get a good deal with Apple, Apple won't make as much money and hopefully go under, along with people like O2 who are only profitable because of the iPhone, also I think it's our duty to hack PSPs and run pirate software on them so that Sony get a taste of the same medicine, personally I hate it when a company makes money, employs people and puts lots of cash into R&D to give us nice products. Corporate bastards, trying to build a society with rules that try to protect their investments, don't they realise that it's their duty to spunk it all away as cheap as possible to people who genuinely don't care where their money goes as long as they get what they want.
Missing killer feature: Nokia/Cyberdyne Systems build quality.
"There is a legit reason to unlock, apple should acknowledge and accept this."
Of course there is, but if they were to acknowledge this, they'd have to admit that the primary motivation for the locking is that they get a lucrative cut of the profit from the tied provider. It's a convenient excuse to avoid looking greedy.
The point of unlocking is not to deny anyone profits. I'd be happy to buy a sensibly priced iPhone without a simlock if it were available. In fact I've come close to buying one with the PAYG option. The provider can't assume they are going to make money off me with PAYG because I normally only use a mobile for incoming calls. So I'm not taking any of their profit by putting a different operator's SIM in.
(I'm either at my desk with a desk phone or at home with a phone. I drive between the 2 locations, but don't call on the road. Any other time I might be out and about, I'd probably rather be doing what I went out to do than talking to other people)
In fact, I'd be better off with an internet tablet, like the nokia N800 than an iphone, but the iphone's nicer.
Nobody is arguing that Apple don't deserve bucks for all their hard work. The problem is they get too greedy and go too far. Encroaching on customers' personal freedom with a draconian carrier locking regime, and exclusivity deals that hugely degrade user experience in return for more short term bucks, pisses people off!
A lot of people are also peeved about the usage lockdown that jailbreaking remedies, but I'm not one of them. Perhaps if Apple rolled down their damned polonecks, broke the arrogant silence, and actually talked to their customers, they might get some understanding & spread some happiness with this aspect.
"unlocking the iPhone makes you anti-Apple"
well holy second coming of L Ron, we can't have that now can we?!?!
I have paid for App Store apps that were just terrible and really didn't do what they claimed to do. Just look at users' reviews. There are quite a lot of apps like that. If Apple's reason for controlling access to its app store is to maintain app quality then they are doing a very bad job.
The iPhone is very good in some ways and terrible in others, and has glaring admissions. Amazingly, there is no missed call alert, and nothing, without interrogating the phone, to show that a new text or email has arrived . There is an app on Cydia to fix this omission (Intelliscreen). You pay for it and it works. You can try before you buy. Why isn't there one in the App Store?? Also, why the hell doesn't Apple provide some way of putting apps into folders, instead of flicking through page after page of icons?? There's an app on Cydia to deal with this (Categories). I used to have three pages of icons, now I have one. These apps just make a good phone better; there's nothing wrong with that. I also have an app for conveniently switching bluetooth and wifi on an off as I need them (SBSetting), without drilling down into the Settings, and I use it all the time. I need bluetooth only when I'm in the car and wifi only wnen I'm using it, and as battery life is an issue with the iPhone it is very useful to be able to do this conveniently. The mere fact that in the app store you have pay for software before you can try it is for me a justification for jailbreaking.
I have quite a lot of music files ripped to Ogg-Vorbis. with my previous Palm there were several music players available and it was easy to choose one that suited me. Why are there NO music players in Apple's App Store to use as an alternative to the provided one??
I can't see why anyone should object to unlocking a phone. Objectors should be objecting to the fact that phones are ever locked in the first place. There's nothing sinful about needing to use on various networks a phone that you have bought and paid for.
Never have trusted apple..... Thought I would give them a go....... I got an iphone for varied good reasons (at least at the time).............
The phone does work reasonably well........ but there is an awful lot of functionality that was either deliberately sabotaged or just not thought about by apple. apple want a captive & controlled audience, it may suit some people. Not me. It is the first and last apple product I buy.
I am on contract with O2. When my contract is up (3 months time) I will ask them/and/or apple to unlock my phone. I am also willing to spend a little money on legal advice if they refuse. Ultimately if that's a non starter I will get whatever hack is available at the time to unlock it. Why? Because I give my 'old' phones to the wife and she likes free choice when it comes to providers (albeit PAYG), simple as that.
My next phone will be android based, the one after that, android or whatever Nokia have up their sleeve.
No more apple for me. Once bitten twice shy.
"In a year or so, Google (Android) and/or Nokia (Maemo) will catch up, and Apple will then discover what it's store of goodwill is worth. (That's negative goodwill, negative worth)."
Hahahahahaha, hahahahahahaha, hahahahahahah, ahahahahahahaha, hahahahah
You make me laugh. Have you used one recently?
If I pay for a device, I expect to own it. If I own it, I expect to be able to do what I like with it. If that voids the warranty, that's my choice to make. But don't tell me what I can and can't do with something I own.
"There is a legit reason to unlock, apple should acknowledge and accept this."
"Of course there is, but if they were to acknowledge this, they'd have to admit that the primary motivation for the locking is that they get a lucrative cut of the profit from the tied provider. It's a convenient excuse to avoid looking greedy."
But I ask again, how the hell do I get an iPhone that hasn't come out of a contract (and thus been paid for one way or another), and if it has apple have had their cut. Once the contract ends the phone is mine.
This is the same for all phone providers, but if I choose to unlock a nokia for example, in or out of contract, firmwar [sic] upgrades dont try to block me from using it.
I love my Nokia 5800. I didn't like what I saw with the iphone. I could see Nokia catching up, after a fashion. I don't think it will out iphone the iphone, but it could produce a handset that had wide appeal and would be intuitive and powerful for a certain segment of the population that doesn't find the iphone all that appealing.
Shoooom....... hear that? that was the point whizzing past you.
A company makes a product, for arguments sake lets call them "SonyMicroApple", they set out the terms for having their product, they build their business model on it, you don't like the terms and (legally or illegally) you get round those terms, this breaks their business model which puts this and future products in jeopardy.
If you don't like their terms, go buy something else, no-one is forcing you to get an iPhone, if you want one but can't live with the terms don't get one, just don't get one and then complain about the terms which you knew about when you you got it. Don't forget all the past investment in the iPhone, R&D, marketing, software licences, you have to pay for this, they didn't invent it with magic, it may be the Jesus phone but God did not immaculately conceive it, and if you want the second comming you'll have to pay for that too.
Dont blink, you'll miss it going past you.
Your hypothectical company "Sonymicroapple" set out terms for the use of there product and they build a busness model around them, but they relise they have no legal basis for enforcing the terms (nessicary for their rediculous bussness model), so they take and add technical impediments to enforce it. You take your legal rights and get around the technical obsticles they put in your way to use your device in the way most-convient for you. Their bussness model is not your problem, it's theirs, and (if their last SEC filing is any indication) not a big one at that. This does not make you "anti-sonymicroapple" this makes you "pro-consumers rights"
And all the investment into createing it is in the cost of the phone and the contract with the carrier to get it (the first-sale still requires a contract).
Hmm maybe we aren't be talking about a hypothetical...
The "you knew the deal" argument is irrelevant. I fully accept that I know the deal. It doesn't negate the fact that 1) carrier locking is anti-consumer and pisses people off and 2) exclusivity causes poor user experience, which also pisses people off. Apple and carriers knew people would sign anything to get the phone, and they took that opportunity to utterly screw their customers. Now surprise, surprise, everybody hates Apple, and o2 is only escaping full wrath because they're doing the honourable thing re unlocking.
As a previous poster noted - Apple are storing up a lot of consumer venom. Far more than the comparatively benign Microsoft ever managed. As soon as their hold on the market diminishes, they'll drop like a rock, mark my words.
Interestingly, I haven't heard much from the formerly ubiquitous Apple fanbois in a few months. I wonder why? ;)
>And all the investment into createing it is in the cost of the phone and the contract with the carrier to get it (the first-sale still requires a contract).
Do you honestly think that the price paid for the iPhone unit plus the wedge that Apple gets for 12/18 months contract covers making that particular iPhone plus it's share of past R&D/marketing/software/Salaries/etc.?
OK, so if I borrow a car on the agreement that I would fill up the tank before returning it but only put £5 in as I only went a few miles and then complained when the owner insisted that I filled the car up that's wrong? I knew what the agreement was, not what I might or might not be able to enforce in law, this is exactly the same argument about buying a PSP, hacking it to play downloaded games, you can't use the argument, "Well, I wouldn't have bought those games anyway" because sony have already lost out on the PSP and you don't have a "right" to have something cheaper just becuase you think it's too expensive, that aint your choice.
If you choose to live in this big democratic pyramid scheme they call "Consumerism" then you must play by the rules or it undermines the system and you won't get the toys you covet so much. The other option is to realise that it's just a phone, not a lifechoice.
If Apple has a busness model that doesn't permit them to make a profit from their product we should see that in their bottom line. As has been pointed out on a number of articles, Apple is quite profitable. Additionally Apple is not *entitled* to make a profit on a bad bussness plan anyway, their profit margin is not my problem as a consumer.
When I buy a phone the only "agreement" I enter into is the one with the phone company, which includes a termination clause. When I fullfill my end of that bargin (if that be by the termination clause or by paying over the life of the contract), I have fullfilled ALL of my obligations. If I barrow a car with the agreement "I'll fill the tank or give you a £50" they cannot really complain if I leave the £50. For the record, you should be able to modify your PSP to play "games you download," provided said games are made availble for download by the copyright holders. Sony's busness model is not my problem (neither is Nintendo's nor Microsoft's)
For the sake of arguemnt, let's assume that I DO have an obligation to fullfill everyone one of the needs of Apple when I buy the phone they produce (even ones that I am not bound to by any law or contract) if Apple's bussness model requires me to buy from there software store, how much am I obligated to buy? Does buying one app fullfill my obligation or do I need to buy 50? Does the price of the app(s) matter? What if I don't want to buy any of the apps, does that make me anti-apple too?
If I make the assumption that you either own or intend to own an iPhone then your argument is "ad hominem" at least from a circumstansual perspective, this is doubly true if you take into account your assertion "their profit margin is not my problem as a consumer", but of course it is, and that was my point, whilst you may not care that the producer of a product may fail because of a fragile bottom line, I find your blindness when it comes to the fact that they attempt to protect their product (therefore their bottom line) very short sighted.
To answer your title, It is unfair of me to indicate that you are a numpty just becuase you have displayed a numpty attitude, however everything I have read, written by you implies you are, in fact a numpty, I'll summarise, I believe that it is in a consumers best interest not to undermine producers of good products, I have inferred (from that which you have written) that not only do you think that this is irrelevant, you think it's a consumers duty! perhaps if your thinking was a little less INTP you'd be able consider that the world is not just you.
Let's dissect this one bit at a time (mostly because it's fun ^_^):
> If I make the assumption that you either own or intend to own an iPhone
A wrong assumption, on both counts.
> then your argument is "ad hominem"
Incorrect, even if my argument where ad hominem (which it is not, but more on that later) you would not have to make that assumption to make it true.
> at least from a circumstansual perspective,
Ad hominem attacks are, by definition, never circumstansual.
> this is doubly true if you take into account your assertion "their profit margin is not my problem as a consumer",
The assertion you refernce is in no way shape or form ad hominem
> but of course it is, and that was my point, whilst you may not care that the producer of a product may fail because of a fragile bottom line,
This is intrinsically contradictory, either it is my problem or it's not. It cannot be both.
> I find your blindness when it comes to the fact that they attempt to protect their product
It is not their product once I have paid for it.
> (therefore their bottom line) very short sighted.
If they will not sell for more then it costs to produce, it's not me being short-sighted.
Now, it's quite clear, from the above passage, that you do not understand the concept of 'argumentum ad hominem' so I will quote the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill's handout on logical fallacies (http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/fallacies.html) '... the ad hominem ("against the person") and tu quoque ("you, too!") fallacies focus our attention on people rather than on arguments or evidence. In both of these arguments, the conclusion is usually "You shouldn't believe So-and-So's argument." The reason for not believing So-and-So is that So-and-So is either a bad person (ad hominem) or a hypocrite (tu quoque). In an ad hominem argument, the arguer attacks his or her opponent instead of the opponent's argument.' To make completely clear, any time you choose to insult someone it is an ad hominem attack.
> To answer your title, It is unfair of me to indicate that you are a numpty
I'm glad you noticed, there may be hope yet!
> just becuase you have displayed a numpty attitude, however everything I have read, written by you implies you are, in fact a numpty,
See? Here we go again. You are not focusing on the arguement at hand, but at me as an individual. That is the logical fallacy we talked about before.
> I'll summarise, I believe that it is in a consumers best interest not to undermine producers of good products,
To use an object outside it's intended use does not undermine the producer of it.
> I have inferred (from that which you have written) that not only do you think that this is irrelevant,
It's not undermining, it's mearly useing something which has been paid for how I see fit, and because it's mine, it is my choice.
> you think it's a consumers duty!
I make no such assertion, and do not think anything of the sort. There is equally nothing wrong with those who do and do not jailbreak their iPhones (or whatever consumer electronics you wish to fill in here)
> perhaps if your thinking was a little less INTP
Interesting you should use a Jung/Myer-Briggs personality type here. If I didn't know better I would think you somehow where trying to imply something is wrong with people who have an INTP personallity type, but to quote the Myer-Briggs Foundation's web site "The goal of knowing about personality type is to understand and appreciate differences between people. As all types are equal, there is no best type." (http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/mbti-basics/)
> you'd be able consider that the world is not just you.
I don't see how this relates to the INTP personallity type. The description, for reference, is "[INTPs] Seek to develop logical explanations for everything that interests them. Theoretical and abstract, interested more in ideas than in social interaction. Quiet, contained, flexible, and adaptable. Have unusual ability to focus in depth to solve problems in their area of interest. Skeptical, sometimes critical, always analytical." (http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/mbti-basics/the-16-mbti-types.asp#INTP) This does not indicate that one is inconsiderate, but that one values ideas over socal interaction, quite to the contrary of what you imply a well thought-out differing idea is quite valuble, as it permits one to better understand their own argument, and, by proxy, the world at large.
For the record, I do acknowladge that I do happen to be an INTP, but I really do think that there might be a bit of transference going on here with respect to consideration of others.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018