The eye of Apple is watching, issuing takedowns

It's beginning to look as though Apple's kinda-sorta "hands off" approach to iPhone hackers turns a bit more "hands on" when it comes to the iPod touch. According to reports, a hacker named "Martyn" had gotten a broken touch, which he was planning to dump the NAND data from so that efforts to create 3rd party applications for the device could be sped up. Apparently, while uploading the data to a private folder on his site, his ISP showed up on the scene and killed the transfer... all at the request of Apple, who (rightfully so) let them know that sharing the code was a copyright infringement. Of course, the interesting news here is that Apple seems to be very actively monitoring channels where all this warranty-voiding software manipulation is being planned and discussed. So next time you're going to reverse engineer one of its products -- keep it quiet.

[Matt @ Sep 26th 2007 3:23PM]

So Apple knew what he was uploading **AS HE UPLOADED IT**?!

How is that supposed to work then, short of emailing Apple's lawyers with your ISP CC'd in saying you are about to upload it? For all they know, he could have been uploading anything.

Makes you wonder if Sony aren't the only ones installing root kits and spyware? :)

[Paul @ Sep 26th 2007 3:30PM]

He apparently posted what he was doing in a private iTouch IIRC dev channel. Last thing I read was postulating that apple has people watching the channel and reporting on the activity.

[HaX80r @ Sep 26th 2007 3:56PM]

ECHELON in the private sector. This could become very bad. I wonder of they monitor PacSats.

[Argot @ Sep 26th 2007 4:02PM]

Yes, but when Apple do it, they do it "rightfully so"!

[Rainier @ Sep 26th 2007 3:24PM]

"The Eye was rimmed with fire, but was itself glazed, yellow as a cat's, watchful and intent, and the black slit of its pupil opened on a pit, a window into nothing."

[Nick @ Sep 26th 2007 3:24PM]

We shall PREVAIL.

[paul34 @ Sep 26th 2007 3:30PM]

Although I suppose that is their right... why are they so averse to the customization community?

How does this hurt them in all practicality? I just don't understand why they are so against anyone that isn't a super-simple user. What is wrong with wanting more functionality, wanting to customize? Just customize one's device seems so abhorrent an idea to Apple. I don't understand their philosophy.

Simple people will use your well designed, simple devices. That's fine, and you get your target base. So why not let power users expand your devices to fit their needs? That way, not only do you make simple users happy, but you also make power users happy.

And think... power users mean $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. Think about it, Apple.

[HineyWipe @ Sep 26th 2007 3:42PM]

Hypocrisy! Think Different so long ago? Did those images of Einstein, Ghandi, Jim Henson, Madame Curie, etc, be nothing more than marketing hype?

Apple should stand behind warranty claims and deny those that tamper. But at what price to those that want to enjoy Apple products more? Crippleware?

[MEAT! @ Sep 26th 2007 3:44PM]

"why are they so averse to the customization community? How does this hurt them in all practicality?"

If a hacker unlocks and modifies the Apple product and allows people to get what they want for free, then Apple will not be in a position to make people pay more for that added functionality.

[paul34 @ Sep 26th 2007 3:48PM]

Right, you could say that, but how is Apple making money anyway?

Other than maybe ringtones, is Apple releasing additional applications? Where are the ridiculously overpriced wallpapers? Where are all the utlities, such as coding or network utilities?

See where I'm going? I see your point, but stuff like this can't hurt Apple because they're not even making money off it in the first place.

[MEAT! @ Sep 26th 2007 3:53PM]

@paul34
I agree with your point that Apple should be cool with it, but for the sake of argument, I'd imagine that Apple wants to stop this sort of activity because they want to reserve the right to do the things the hackers want to do now. If iPhone hackers add all sorts of neat PDA-like applications, then Apple very well can't go and charge $100 extra for a business edition of the iPhone.

[Firley @ Sep 26th 2007 3:56PM]

I think the problem isn't so much with costing Apple money in an explicit sense, but rather in hurting their partnerships.

If unfettered development is allowed, the clever programmers out there will instantly develop a Skype client for the iPhone. Cool, yes - but not cool for Apple's deal with ATT, so they have to stop that.

Also, considering Apple's uneasy relationship with the RIAA, there would be a lot of damage done as soon as somebody writes a program that shares music out of your iTunes library.

I think Apple would love to let us run Nintendo emulators and everything, but they have to protect the business model.

[Paul @ Sep 26th 2007 5:10PM]

@MEAT!

"If a hacker unlocks and modifies the Apple product and allows people to get what they want for free, then Apple will not be in a position to make people pay more for that added functionality."

That IS true, Microsoft..err..I mean Apple deserves the right to cripple it's user base in an attempt to make more and more money.

[Brad @ Sep 26th 2007 5:26PM]

"Did those images of Einstein, Ghandi, Jim Henson, Madame Curie, etc, be nothing more than marketing hype?"

Actually those ads always kind of bothered me - since none of the people involved (or their survivors) gave permission for their image to be used it seems a little underhanded - if not outright dishonest. If I release a product and my entire ad campaign centered around "It's what those that died in Sept. 11 would want you to buy" I'd get a hugely negative reaction. But somehow, because it's Apple, it's OK to take Civil Rights leaders, Religious figures, and the like and slap your logo on their image.

[John @ Sep 26th 2007 7:15PM]

Hacking the software on the iPod doesn't really hurt them at all... it's not like you can start selling it, because you need the hardware too... and they're the only ones who sell it. It's like why Apple doesn't care if you steal Mac OS - you're kinda sunk unless you already bought a mac.

[Twitchy @ Sep 26th 2007 11:29PM]

The most likely reason why Apple is concerned is that the software (i.e the user interface) is the biggest factor that sets them apart from the cheap copies. So if the software can be pirated and loaded onto said forgeries, then Apple's screwed.

[Sclath @ Sep 26th 2007 3:31PM]

That is kind of Big Brother scary.

[jroc @ Sep 26th 2007 3:35PM]

It seems to be the grim scope of the future. Oh well... getting chipped and watched 24/7 won't be that bad... right?

[strider_mt2k @ Sep 26th 2007 3:33PM]

Where your mindset NOW???

[Duane @ Sep 26th 2007 3:35PM]

Wow, not wanting the iPhone unlocked and cutting into their AT&T shared revenue is one thing, but actively keeping the newest iPod from being modified? Why? What does Apple have to lose?

[David Clark @ Sep 27th 2007 7:49AM]

It's not "what does Apple have to lose" but rather, what do they have to gain? Someone unlocks an iPhone, they sell more units to non-AT&T customers who don't want to switch. They sit by and allow it to happen without causing too big of a fuss until it's all said and done.

They have nothing to gain by allowing the touch to be hacked. So they actually flex their muscles and swat flies in mid-flight.

[kismet i. @ Sep 26th 2007 3:41PM]

welcome to half life 2

[Mark @ Sep 26th 2007 3:46PM]

You folks don't really believe this, do you? Get real.

[Brian @ Sep 26th 2007 4:06PM]

Quite agree - this story is bullshit. What source do they have.

My god I was thinking about buying an iPhone without activating it and Apple sent me a cease and desist order baning me from such thoughts.....

[dj-kenpo @ Sep 26th 2007 8:24PM]

I beleive it. I was just reading his blog about getting the broken itouch in exchange for a nano just a few days ago. he was very transparent about what he was doing.

[Patrick McCarron @ Sep 26th 2007 3:49PM]

He was uploading copyrighted material to a "public" web-server so others could download this material. Instead he should have kept it private or told others how to do the same thing he did. They told him to stop uploading the data and to have it removed.

[Jesse S @ Sep 26th 2007 3:49PM]

Wow, what a crappy ISP. Who was it, comcast?

An ISP should NEVER do anything at the will of companies or the government, short of a court order.

What bullshit.

[Steve Jobs @ Sep 26th 2007 3:49PM]

All your ipod are belong to us.

[bruckwine @ Sep 26th 2007 3:52PM]

That's silly - why not do this with the iPhone? Maybe because they HOPE to get a lot of money from the iTune wireless store hmmm? This is one guy they ain't pwning!

[Nirmal @ Sep 26th 2007 3:54PM]

hmmm... Is Apple becoming another Microsoft? or maybe worse?....

[Sclath @ Sep 26th 2007 3:54PM]

Next time just BitTorrent the code

[John @ Sep 26th 2007 3:54PM]

License agreement.

While it also puts them in a position to make less money, dumping of proprietary information onto the internet gives ANYONE (hackers trying to compromise devices instead of adding functionality, rival companies, etc.) access to that data for free. I'm supportive of homebrew communities, but publicly dumping data (and announcing it to an IRC channel) is irresponsible and definitely something any company should be proactive about.

[Paul @ Sep 26th 2007 5:14PM]

Quite true, and it's not like anyone could just buy the device and get access to the same code...oh...wait...

[John @ Sep 26th 2007 5:42PM]

@Paul

Okay, say there were 20 people in the IRC chatroom. One person bought an iPod touch for $299 and uploaded its data. The 19 others download the source code...and Apple's out $5681. That's the difference between the competition buying it as market research as opposed to finding it free on the internet.

[John @ Sep 26th 2007 7:17PM]

Yeah, because having the software means you have the hardware too, right? Unless the having the software means that an iPod touch is miraculously transfered from Apple's warehouses to your hands, they didn't lose anywhere near $100, much less $6000

[Yermom @ Sep 26th 2007 11:52PM]

"Proactive" seems to be the wrong word. Unless Apple was delivering their cease-and-desist in response to an already fulfilled breach of their intellectual property rights from this same individual, it seems as though they've stopped the crime before it occured ala "Minority Report." I suppose you can contend that he wasn't prosecuted in a court of law, so it was ok. Maybe next time a hacker makes a comment like that in a public forum, he'll follow up with uploading a fully-encrypted version of the dump and raise hell when/if the ISP attempts to shut it down mid transit.

[Fraunhofer Plug @ Sep 26th 2007 3:54PM]

You guys still think this is about restricting third-party development?

They are a million times more concerned with competitors figuring out how to properly integrate iTunes and purchased media into non-Apple hardware.

No SDK until they've built it, and an iron gauntlet around their own proprietary code.

Oh evil "new" Apple. Seriously, when was Apple as progressive about information dissemination as you guys remember?

Keep your eyes on the ball people, you're looking in the wrong direction at shit that doesn't exist.

[Josh @ Sep 26th 2007 4:04PM]

Logical argument, well said. Definitely true.

[newgalactic @ Sep 26th 2007 3:59PM]

They shouldn't have implied that the iPhone contains OS X, because it sure seems to be very "closed" (Windows ME).

[Tanner @ Sep 26th 2007 4:02PM]

OK, please understand this. This dude publicly stated what he was going to do. Apple was not spying on him. The information he was uploading was the source code that runs the iPod. I don't know of any company that would be OK with someone posting the source code to any program that wasn't open source. This is a nont story and is just troll bait. Move along, nothing to see here.

To the people that keep saing apple is the next microsoft GIVE ME A BREAK! That is one of the dumbest things I have heard in a long time. So apple has been convicted of a Monopoly (in more than one counter)? They use their monopoly from keeping people to compete in certain market spaces? They release products that they don't have any intention of keeping just to kill off the competition? Apple is selling a good product and is trying to protect their intellectual property and copyrights they are not trying to squash the little guy here. The dude was stupid and proclaimed out loud "Hey guys I am going to post the source code to an iPod" what the hell would you think is going to happen?

[newgalactic @ Sep 26th 2007 4:06PM]

"They use their monopoly from keeping people to compete in certain market spaces? They release products that they don't have any intention of keeping just to kill off the competition?"

...are you badmouthing my iPod?

[Justin @ Sep 26th 2007 4:26PM]

"Apple is selling a good product and is trying to protect their intellectual property and copyrights they are not trying to squash the little guy here."

Yes, actually, they are. It's what any business worth its salt in a capitalistic economy would do, actually.

And yes, as much as I like open source pretty much anything, Apple wasn't necessarily wrong here. And yes, this is coming from someone who's been labeled an anti-Apple fanatic on these very pages!

[SteveJ @ Sep 26th 2007 4:11PM]

Whatever they do the iPod touch will get hacked and I'm looking forward to it. I just got my week 38 touch yesterday and it's fantastic so far. I don't have the negative blacks problem. I viewed the various screen testing web sites - they look fine, though I did notice that the best quality was achieved by angling the touch away from me slightly, and that the viewing angle *for perfect viewing* is pretty narrow (not a big deal to me.) Mind you, it still looks very good straight on, just not as great as when viewed at a slight angle. I'll hold it at a slight angle. I can't compare the blacks to an iPhone as I don't have an iPhone, but it looks damn good to me.

[Addy Osmani @ Sep 26th 2007 4:16PM]

I think you're missing something, Tanner - the point people are trying to make is that Apple did *not* swoop down like a hawk and prevent any hacker related activities when it came to the iPhone. They have in fact been pretty non-challant about Jailbreak and other developments in that particular circle.

With the iPod Touch, on the other hand, I personally believe that Apple is doing it's best to prevent users from turning the Touch into a PDA of the same caliber as the iPhone (something that would really not be very difficult to do).If you can download free third-party applications to extend a device running the *same* OS as a more expensive incorporation, why bother buying the iPhone at all?.

At present users are going to buy the iPhone is they want merged Phone/PDA/MP3 capabilities and the Touch if they only want the MP3 side. Now imagine if someone *gave* the iPod community the PDA functionality for free ...there would be one less reason to fork over *more* of your well earned dollars to Apple.

I'm certain some people will come out of the bushes to defend Apple's stance on this, however it's restricting development and product enhancement, whatever way you look at it.

I dare you to name me one other MP3 manufacturer that has spied on their users just for playing around with hacked device source code in efforts to *expand* it.

[yacoub @ Sep 26th 2007 4:28PM]

@ Addy: the two products really don't overlap though. People with a cellphone they are happy with, who are replacing their iPod and would like to gain some basic PDA functionality, are the customer base for the touch, especially one that allows 3rd party apps. They have no interest in or reason to buy the iPhone so Apple is not losing any money from them. This is why Apple is wrong to lockdown the touch.

Besides, in our world of multi-tasking, the reality is a lot of folks who use their phone frequently realize the value of having the cellphone separate from their PMP/PDA so they can actually be on a call while doing other things like PDA functions, email, games, etc.

When your phone is an all-in-one device, you can't hold it up to your ear and do other things at the same time. If you are on a call on your cellphone, you could still use your touch to do PDA tasks or games or whatever. This in the hypothetical ideal world where it is not locked down.

[yacoub @ Sep 26th 2007 4:17PM]

How foolish of Apple to fight AGAINST its own customer base. They'd sell so many more iPod touches and iPhones if they allowed 3rd party app development, even encouraged it.

[Steven @ Sep 26th 2007 4:19PM]

He wasn't going to release "source code," he was just releasing dumps of the chips (TUAW got the story wrong).

This is (as far as I know) completely legal reverse engineering.

[g2 @ Sep 26th 2007 4:23PM]

I think Apple is afraid of what someone will do to make the devices more productive. Also it's about controlling you. Very repressive thinking.

[Alevino @ Sep 26th 2007 4:25PM]

Think Different...Beware The Rotten Apple!!!!
Big Steevie Brother is here now!

[Scooby Carolan @ Sep 26th 2007 4:29PM]

The iPhone has touchy firmware. So don't fuck with it.

The Touch may have some other crazy shit that we don't know about yet. Jesus, you people are like little kids that get pissed at their parents for not being able to open presents before Christmas!

Everyone in the universe knows theres some big update this week. Everybody knows Erica has widgets working and Apple has an SDK for widgets?

F-ing losers. I used to be cool like you....