No, you still don't own it. The software it runs is still incredibly locked down, leaving you unable to inspect how it works at any reasonable level and unable to legally modify and resell it like you could with anything you actually own.
Whenever you buy an iOS device you know that it is locked down. I don't understand why people feel the need to complain about this. You do own it, you can do what you want with it. It has just not been designed to make that easy.
Yep, all consumers have perfect knowledge, whenever they purchase something they know exactly what they are getting into. The nearly $500 billion dollars projected to be spent on advertisements by the end of this year has nothing to do with it, nor did any other forms of manipulation.
As someone who generally loves the idea of tinkering with my phone, I simply can't buy the logic that not being able to, actually hinders the ownership experience.
I don't have any interest in "hacking" into my car, dishwasher, or fridge. I want them to _just work_, and I want to know who to call when they break.
So then, it is entirely reasonable that most people simply want their electronics to work, rather than to somehow feel that just because they can't tinker and mod their device, their ownership is somehow hindered.
Although I do feel that media DRM (movies, music, DVD region codes) can often hinder the ownership experience, I simply don't see how these devices being locked down actually hurt MOST consumers who aren't even interested in such details.
There's a trend in this whole thread that I don't understand. After pointing out that the users are licensing the ability to use the proprietary operating system rather than "owning" it, the main rebuttal is: nobody cares, so it doesn't matter.
I don't understand that. For example, few people care about taxes, war, or clean energy policies (less than 50% vote in much of North America). Does that mean the work done in these areas doesn't matter? The fact that most people don't care has little to do with the truth of the matter.
Only Apple owns iPhones. It doesn't matter that nobody cares about this, they still don't own their phone.
I understand the need to confuse "ownership" with hackability, for the purposes of philosophizing on this site. We are all tinkerers.
But by every definition of ownership recognized by society and our laws (at least in the United States), you completely own your phone. You are lawfully allowed to do the following:
- crush it, destroy it, put it in the dishwasher, or drive over it
- open it up all you want
- sell it to someone else
- Install alternate software on it
You are under no obligation to anyone once you have purchased that phone. It is, by ANY definition, legally your property.
The WORST thing Apple can do to you, is void your warranty. And that is completely acceptable.
Whether you think it should be less or more difficult is a philosophical discussion. The fact is, you have all the same protections under any laws that most people who "own" things have.
Reply to VladRussian Below (I couldn't find a reply link): Won't get me to disagree with you on anything related to the DMCA. I think it is a pigheaded piece of evil legislation. :) But most of the things I'm talking about aren't related to the DMCA (at least I hope not).
And this is the main point of all these discussions. It isn't about technical obstacles put in place by Apple and difficulty to break them as it only adds more interest to process, It is about criminalizing the very act of analysis of the system, ie. an act of mental activity, applied to the system you're supposedly own.
>I understand the need to confuse "ownership" with hackability, for the purposes of philosophizing on this site. We are all tinkerers.
Nobody tries to confuse ownership and hackability. They are orthogonal. What people still trying to bend their minds around is the ownership and off-limit (for your mind) holes in that ownership established by DMCA.
Ah. I see. I only came in here to correct the statements about ownership. It matters to me that HN is not the kind of place where people think they own their iPhones - after all the news about software patents, free software, mobile platforms, etc, I think it's an important distinction to make on this site. The people here care (obviously, hence this debate) about this issue and I just wanted the definitions to be set right: jailbreaking != ownership.
As to why it's good or bad, that's entirely personal preference. For me, I want to own it because I want the option to change it. That's all. Therefore, for me, it's terrible to buy a device I don't own. That should answer your question about why it's bad.
Maybe it's not bad for you. Maybe it's good for you to not own the device. That's fine; I'm only here to remind you that you don't own it (after it was erroneously suggested up top that you do own it)
My point is only that, do you feel like you own the other appliances in your home any less, if they had parts that were tougher for you to fix without voiding a warranty?
Or are we only having this discussion because we all here collectively care more about the hackability of electronics?
Ok, you choose what software you run, then along comes the other guy and claims that you don't own your phone unless you control what hardware is running your software.
Some just cannot tell owning and controlling apart.
Do you remember when Amazon deleted books off of peoples' kindles? Remote control of your phone is one obvious way in which Apple owns it and you do not. And the average person might not think they would care but when their copy of 1984 disappears they get angry!
I think it’s necessary to be ever vigilant when companies create an infrastructure for doing just that and to really scream bloody murder when they actually use it. I also can understand people who refuse to buy devices that actually support moves like that (Apple has the capability for remotely removing apps.) It’s a valid reason.
I, however, like to be more pragmatic.
1. As far as I know Apple never used that capability. They removed apps from the store, they never remotely removed apps from devices. (I think Apple claims that they only want to use this capability for removing maleware. Now, you might not believe them but their track record is pretty clean in that regard.)
2. Shitstorms will make anyone with such a capability think long and hard about actually using it. (I think Amazon at least apologized for what happened, I don’t know what else they did for the customers who lost their copies.) Apple can’t just treat their customers like crap.
It’s right to be vigilant about theoretical capability but I don’t think I’m completely irresponsible when I recognize factors that will prevent Apple from using their theoretical capability to its full extent.
>I want them to _just work_, and I want to know who to call when they break.
And in what way, shape or form does this require the device to be locked down to hell and back? That argument is a fallacy - correlation does not imply causation. The two things are completely unrelated to each other, yet people continue to assert that from one follows the other (locked -> just works), and that the opposite is also True (free -> doesn't just work).
It's bullshit, and I'm sick and tired of hearing it. There's absolutely no reason for locking down a device besides wanting to restrict the user's freedom. This isn't about "just working", it isn't about better support, it's about unjustified control over the user's actions.
> This isn't about "just working", it isn't about better support...
Tell that to the iOS developer who is getting bad reviews because the app does not run correctly on jailbroken devices where some system modification has been installed.
What about the other direction? My jailbroken 3GS had a nifty app that would look up incoming calls in online phone books to tell me who it was even if it wasn't in my address book. It Just Worked pretty well. Now that I have a 4S, I have lost this functionality and can't add it back (at least until a proper publicly available jailbreak is ready).
Jailbreaking and the third-party add-ons that it enables can increase the Just Works factor of a device.
>In this sense, "Just works" relates to restrictions on users.
No. Still attacking a symptom. Standard compliance solves the same problem, without having to lock down the system. If programmers are unable or unwilling to conform to standards, then this is again not the fault of the system[1]. Give up on arguing that there is any sort of causation between "locked" and "just works". It's wrong.
[1] Actually, in this case it's the fault of the system. The lock places a false sense of security on programmers, which is pretty dangerous.
But standards compliance is a sort of restriction on the apps the user can run. If you make the standards stricter and stricter, you restrict the space of configurations more -- and make it easier to get configurations that work together.
The difference is that nobody forces you to comply to standards. If you want to hack around on your device, install third party software, concoct your own APIs and drivers or patch the kernel, nobody can stop you (and shouldn't be allowed to, either). While you can argue that a restrictive system is a sort of standard as well, you are forced to comply to that standard with no alternative, and that's bad.
Besides, standards, at least open ones, are usually collaborative efforts of multiple actively involved parties, while restricted systems are controlled by a single entity - which again is bad.
To me, it doesn't really matter whether or not most people care about that in their phone. The definition stands. Nobody but Apple owns iPhones. Maybe no iPhone users care about that, and that's fine. But that doesn't change the fact that they own a license to use it and not the product itself.
Would you say the same about your TV, your wristwatch, or your car? If not, why not? They all run software that you don't have the source to, and in some cases can't modify at all (burned into ROMs.)
> The nearly $500 billion dollars projected to be spent on advertisements by the end of this year has nothing to do with it, nor did any other forms of manipulation.
Fundamentally, people will not purchase something unless they think (however fleetingly) that it will be of benefit to them. Your right; they might not know exactly what they are getting into. But companies can't lie about it. And in this day and age, the information is usually obtainable without too much work.
Thanks to the jailbreak, it is possible in principle to get Android running on the iPhone hardware. In practice, this may not be possible yet, but it has been accomplished before on earlier hardware.
Therefore, buying an iPhone is not that different from buying a Mac: You get a computer with a proprietary operating system, which (thanks to DevTeam) can be bypassed and replaced with anything that will run, which will eventually include Android assuming people care enough to make it work (they will).
The parent comment, that this is a win consumers shouldn't need to fight for, is one I support wholeheartedly.
What do you mean by "unable to legally modify and resell it"? I believe I can break my phone open, install anything I want, and resell it on eBay or at a flea market.
Is your definition of ownership including the software? That's not exactly fair, because you never own software unless you personally write it; any software is installed under a license.
>That's not exactly fair, because you never own software unless you personally write it; any software is installed under a license.
Technically this might be true, but Free Software licenses allow you varying degrees of do what the fuck you want, while proprietary licenses grant you a (temporary) right to use the software, and nothing else. With FS, I own the copy I received. With proprietary licenses, I don't.
I was under the impression that the GPL forced you to release any modifications under GPL as well. If this is true, doesn't this mean you _don't_ own it?
The GPL is really a very special case. I can understand most and share some of the criticism of it, but the fact is that it tries to keep things fair for everyone by preserving all essential freedoms. It does this by restricting one freedom: your freedom to restrict the freedom of others.
I personally would prefer permissive licenses (or really, no licenses at all, but we're not going to arrive at this point any time soon), and actually use them for some stuff. It's just that the GPL is necessary to force change right now.
Fair enough. I just don't think you really _own_ software in the sense that you can release it under a different license or call it your own work. Kind of like how you own the CD you buy from your local record store, but that doesn't mean you own the rights to the songs on it.
Not at all. Software is sold. Until that changes the EULA is irrelevant.
Copyright law has specific exemptions for copying a program in memory, etc, for the purposes of executing it. No license has is needed, making the justification for EULAs nonexistent.
I thought when I walked into the Toyota dealership and bought a car, I owned it too, however, I guess I really don't because I can't load custom software onto my in car navigation system.
This is a ridiculous logical fallacy. People want a car or a phone that works. Outside of a few hackers and geeks, nobody cares if they can load their own custom software on it.
Are you sure you can't load custom software into your navigation system? Is there actual code signing and DRM in place to prevent you, or is it just that it's an obscure system you don't happen to have development tools for?
You can, however, take apart your car and replace the parts. Your analogy fails because nobody has any expectation of replacing or changing the software in a car, the way nobody expects to be able to change the logic in a GPS chip in your phone.
However, when people purchase a small computer, it's reasonable to assume that the ability to modify the software on it is something that could define "ownership", just the way car tinkerers own their cars and show that by fiddling around with the insides.
> You can, however, take apart your car and replace the parts.
However, if you do certain mods, said car is no longer street legal.
> Your analogy fails because nobody has any expectation of replacing or changing the software in a car
Not so fast. There are lots of folks who want to change the engine control software, specifically the software related to engine performance. There's even an industry that serves (and sometimes cheats) such people.
The "street legal" bit is almost always environmental, but neither the car companies nor Apple have police.
Does Apple claim that jail breaking is breaking the law or breaking a contract?
FWIW, the car companies do go after (some) folks who produce "mods" on intellectual property grounds. They haven't yet gone after users but there doesn't seem to be any any reason why they couldn't, using exactly the same reasoning as Apple.
> It's completely unanalogous.
It may not be exactly the same, but there are significant similarities.
In both cases, we have IP claims and (some) users want to "not manufacturer" software mods.
> Don't defend broken analogies. And yes, it is broken.
Since apple isn't claiming a law violation, the only remaining difference is that some people don't know about chipping cars. Is that a serious problem?
It doesn't matter. You can''t compare some car mods to all iPhone mods, and you can't assume that the companies' claims have any weight.
Even if your analogy didn't stink, and it does, it would still be meaningless because it's just a thing you said, not a validated and useful model. So give it up.
The navigation system in my car has a 20GB hard drive, runs Linux, and arguably has more power than an iPhone. I'm still not regretting the fact that I can't load software on it. When I'm trying to get somewhere, I just want the GPS to work - I really don't want to see it crash because I loaded a dodgy piece of crapware on it.
Likewise, the first time a customer tries to make a phone call and instead gets a pop up ad saying "YOUR PHONE IS AT RISK!!!!1!!!11!1!" you will know you failed at delivering a successful smartphone experience.
Others have pointed out that there are a lot of things that we 'own', but that fail this definition for regulatory or safety reasons. I don't think that this is a good definition.
To most people, ownership means legal control over physical possession, and the right to transfer 'ownership'. Apple can't legally require that I return my iPhone to them, just as Toyota can't legally require that I return my minivan to one of their dealers. They 'belong' to me - I 'own' them and control who possesses them.
>People want a car or a phone that works. Outside of a few hackers and geeks, nobody cares if they can load their own custom software on it.
we'll talk in several years when it will be implantable devices and in several years more when they will be integrated into you neural circuitry and you will be under impression that these thoughts and memories are yours... well, until the DRM allows you to have that impression :) One can easily extrapolate how, like your photos today, Facebook will also have the right to use your dreams in promotional ad campaings.
Mainly, because I paid for it, but Apple still has control over what it runs. "If you can't open it, you don't own it." The real definition of ownership is who controls the device. To the extent that I can't do what I want with the phone, it isn't mine.
I have no problem with your definition of owning. I disagree with it – but that’s not the point and it would be pointless to discuss this any further. I would prefer not to.
On the facts (and not definitions) I do agree with you. Apple does have control over what iOS runs, that’s certainly true. What I’m saying is that I do not care about that.
This is not black and white either: I know what Apple allows and what they don’t. There are some annoying issues with that but I’m personally not affected by them. It’s a negative point for me, certainly one I considered when I bought my iPad, but on balance it wasn’t important enough for me to care about it at all.
I know that Apple can unilaterally change what they allow and what not but 1) there is public pressure on them not to and 2) my iPad won’t survive forever and I can switch to something else quick enough.
> What I’m saying is that I do not care about that.
That's certainly your prerogative. I think that more people should care, but it's ultimately your choice to make, not mine. At least you're making an informed decision and I can respect that even if I disagree.
My worry is that many people don't care right now because they're not informed and because Apple isn't doing anything most people would care about. And that sets things up for someday when, in the pursuit of profit, they will start abusing it in ways that most people care about. By then, it will be too late.
Maybe I'm wrong about that. It turned out that I was right about Sony, though. I would have liked to buy some of their products, even knowing their faults, but I refused. And I by refusing to buy from them from the start, I avoided all sorts of trouble later on.
True, Apple could be a different case. I just don't care enough about them to find that out the hard way.
Because of decennia of price drops of electronics, they get rarer, but there still are mechanical clocks and egg timers without an IC in it. These used to be screwed closed, but nowadays, the housing typically cannot be opened.
So, a proponent of that claim should even it to some things without an IC.
That's the same for your alarm clock, your video game console, your TV, and maybe even your fridge. All these things run only the software that the vendor allows you to run. Why don't people complain that they can't install Linux on their camera?
However - I think it's different for cars, which are often brought up as a comparison but can in fact be customized in many ways.
If you want to talk about not owning something that you paid for, take a look at the Ferrari FXX.
>Customers pay $1.8 million, but are only allowed to drive the car on special track days which are approved by Ferrari.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferrari_fxx
I don't get this reasoning. No, you do not "own" a jailbroken iPhone. When you truly own something, you can do what you want with each and every component, including its system software, up to and including selling or licensing it as your own property. The very foundations of copyright law will not permit you to do that.
Most people would agree that the core ideas behind copyright law are useful, necessary, and just, or at least they'd agree that there is no chance that the law's fundamental basis will change anytime soon.
So no, all you've done is make a minor change to the device's operation that allows you to do some things with it that weren't as easy to do before. That's great, but casting it as some kind of moral act of "ownership" makes absolutely no sense. If you didn't build it yourself -- all of it -- you don't "own" it.
Just a friendly reminder that after about 1-2 more of these comments that add nothing to the conversation, you're going to reach negative karma and be shadow-banned.
edit: I take it back and agree wholeheartedly with cryptoz.
Now you don't need permission from Apple to run some of your own software on a device you paid for.