Do you think individuals should be allowed to Root/Jailbreak?
Then again, a more legal perspective (I'm not an expert of law) would be that since a purchase is actually a contract and if one of the terms of the contract is that you cannot modify the software, then you are bound by that. If you do not agree with it then do no proceed with the purchase/contract.
Basically what I am saying is, yes jailbreaking gives you the ability to possibly get apps for free. But that is up to the choice of the user. Cydia does not advertise this, and in a sense is against it.
Although, it is absolutely different if these devices are leased. In any lease agreement, it's most likely rooting or jailbreaking is prohibited.
@bare516: I like the way you specified that an item on lease would prohibit rooting or jailbreaking because that would open up security issues. Also, by pointing out that consumers should be allowed to make these modifications and void their warranty, is their choice.
If I was leasing a car, I would never modify it.
If I was purchasing a car, I might get a paint job, better tires, and maybe a better sound system.
It is the same thing with my phone. If I purchased my phone, I want to be able to paint "themes" onto my phone. I want to be able to remove features I will never need. I want control over the product I purchased. Rooting/Jailbreaking gives us the ability to customize and squeeze the value out of our purchases.
When I meet someone with a tricked out mustang, I am really interested in that car, and that persons taste. In a way, that person is defining themselves. Being able to make my phone fit my needs, after spending $+200 at times, is similar. I think it is well within the realm of reason to believe that most people want things to be the way they enjoy them the most.
Now I understand that many people say we own the hardware and not the software. We are purchasing the device. But you can legally modify a car to a variation of things. You could even add a gps system, a laptop or a new engine. If apple is selling me that hardware and it comes with iOS/If samsung is selling me hardware and it comes with android, that would be like a car company telling you, "You cannot change the tires, because we own those, and you are not allowed to improve upon this product".
Lastly, I am saying that if software cannot be modified because we don't own it, then maybe the companies are doing business wrong. They claim we own the hardware alone. But if the problem really was ownership, then sell me a device that lets me also own the software. If these companies actually took action based upon software ownership, then whenever someone purposefully smashed a phone on youtube, would that person not be liable for destroying hardware aswell as software? They keep trying to blur the line between the two, but the fact is, we gave the companies money for both. We reserve the right to change it how we would like.
Seeing as most (if not all here are pro rooting/jailbreaking/etc.), I'll make a contribution from the other camp (please be gentle with your rebuttals! :P). Basically, I think some comparisons are either antiquated, or don't make sense. For example, people like to say that since I bought a product, I should be able to do whatever I want with it. I agree, but can/should we apply the same logic to software?
Say for example, Photoshop: I buy a copy of Photoshop - but does it give me the right to get into the software's source a make changes at will? There are laws preventing us from doing that - hence differentiating open-source software and proprietary software.
Let's elaborate on this further, say someone purchases a copy of Photoshop, modifies the codebase adding new functionality, removing some, and so forth. Afterwards, that individual then releases the modified Photoshop to the public. Should that be considered legal considering that the Photoshop codebase is (at least I assume it is) proprietary?
If you remember not too long ago, the hacker Geohot published a way to root the PS3 & got himself into heaps of legal battles with Sony. In my understanding, donations were taken, but not requiring payment for the "how-to". In my opinion, having repackaged proprietary software, makings sales from it & not a dime to the original developer isn't fair. The stance with Sony vs. Geohot is the the lost of game sales due to the PS hack that, allegedly, would allow pirated games to be played. We see that now with Xbox. Modded Xbox360s are banned from Xbox Live when detected when logged in Xbox Live. It's about motive. The only reason i see to mod a Xbox is to play pirated games. We all know how "piracy" hurts everyone.
Again, I believe it's about motive in regarding why would individuals would choose to root/jailbreak devices.
As your given example of Photoshop, how is it any different than MagicLantern for Canon DSLRs? Yes the Canon firmware is reversed engineered to make existing or non-existing features better, yet the developer for MagicLantern is not receiving payment, but donations from users who support on his further development on the software. I understand the need for intellectual property to be protected, but would it deter sales from buying Canon DSLRs in this example? I believe consumers will continue to buy. I personally use MagicLantern on my Canon T2i for still pictures and video, and in my opinion is far better than the stock Canon firmware. So does this require legal action against the developer of MagicLantern, which isn't on sale, but distributed for free who are interested because it made the device function better?
It's "apples & oranges" when you talk about "proprietary" & open-sourced software. The real problem here is there are people trying to make a buck. You can always find them. There are people selling services to root/jailbreak phones and it's usually sold to people how aren't tech savvy enough to do it themselves
Reverse-engineering / tampering / hacking /ect is what drives this industry. It's what propels innovation, although the technology isn't new, if you hear what i'm saying. We see it all the time. Example...look at Android. Steve Jobs could have sued the hell out of Google for infringing iOS, but instead goes on a bold statement by saying he'll destroy Android on the market share. Another example is Firefox which is a repackaged Netscape Navigator. Then you have Microsoft going after Linux for infringing off their patents.
In the past ten years in gadgetry and software, this industry is no stranger to the legality to your said point. If you really think about it, its so convoluted.
However, jailbreaking / rooting isn't that. It's either reverse-engineering something, then recreating the same way, albeit with a few modifications, or hacking through the proprietary codebase, then releasing it again.
Sure, people could do that as a hobby and all, but to consider it completely legal - wouldn't that tantamount to saying that all software should be considered as open source (to a certain extent)? Yes I know I over-exaggerated that part, but there is still some sense there.
Also, I think the developers actually charge for the app and then Apple takes a cut after.
Edit: Wow, I just compared $0.99 apps to maintenance on a BMW. Lol!
15 users following this discussion, including:
This discussion has been viewed 4138 times.
Last activity .