Comment by some1else | Hacker News Reader

Comment by some1else | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Apple's response mentioned in the post can be read here: http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2008/answers/7_13_responses/ap...

Jobs' confirmation of an existing "kill switch" sounds like a technical counter-measure to me: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/3358134/Apples-Jobs-co...

The recent patent submission to track 'suspicious activity' seems like a nice detection system that can be used to flip the kill switch when kids try to segfault the iOS, in order to find an attack vector for a jailbreak.

I think Apple may be keeping the status quo for a while longer, to secure it's position in the smartphone market, to avoid a backlash, to benefit from free vulnerability disclosures by the jailbreak community and to focus it's development efforts to more important tasks at hand.

Apple is indeed not openly fighting jailbreakers, but it's in their interest to keep the software under control. Whenever you upgrade from a jailbroken phone, all the unsigned apps disappear, along with the data contained. Given their desire to control the application ecosystem (grossly benefiting from all the developer signups and app sales), if the percentage of jailbroken iPhones ever becomes a blip on the radar, they will take repressive action to disincentivize the user (AppStore lock-out, kill-switch) and jailbreak tinkerers (suspicious activity reports).

I don't find the unlocking US phones in Europe a problem, because legislation here often requires the phones to be unlocked from the subscription plan. iPhones can be bought unlocked at a slightly higher (unsubsidized) price.

I think you are muddying the topic with your links.

The kill switch exists, very true, but other stores have it just the same: in particular Android Marketplace has a kill switch too.

The copyright submission does show that Apple considers jailbreaking illegal, but that was NOT what people are discussing. Everyone agrees that is Apple's stance. The question is if Apple should "look the other way", with a camp saying they already seem not to care much and others saying they are doing everything they can to stop jailbreaking. So again: nobody is arguing about Apple's official stance, but how hard they should pursue it.

Finally the recent patent is just that: a patent. It is not something that has actually been implemented, and we don't even know if they want to implement it. But the bottom line is that in a discussion if Apple has or has not fight jailbreaking, we are talking 2007-now. Arguing that Apple may in the _future_ implement something like that would be bad but not relevant.

That is not to say I think your arguments may be wrong. I agree in the future Apple may fight jailbreaking more strongly, we don't know. But the discussion is not about how likely it is or isn't a certain future, but how Apple has acted _so_far_.

I wouldn't exactly classify Apple's response to questions, which they were explicitly asked by the Copyright Office, as "fought hard". Fighting hard would be Apple spending millions of dollars lobbying against the exemptions or taking the case to court.

And the kill switch in questions is one "that allows Apple to remotely delete malicious or inappropriate applications stored on the device". One that they haven't yet used, I might add, unlike some other mobile OS vendors. It's not a nefarious device to prevent jailbreaking.

I'm not arguing that it's not in Apple's interest to prevent jailbreaking. I'm not arguing that it is not that they are not making it easy to jailbreak iOS. All I'm saying is that it doesn't look like they are actively fighting jailbreaking. All the hurdles to jailbreaking thus far seem to be coincidental rather than the goal.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com