Hacker frees iPhone from Jobsian tyranny (again)
$10,000 worth of integrity
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 shelling out hundreds of dollars for their pricey handhelds they should be allowed to use them as they want - to install applications not bought in the App Store, choose a wireless provider that actually provides service in their area, use non-phone-related capabilities such as the iPod without having to sign a two-year activation contract, or even use their phone when traveling in other countries.
It didn't take long for George Hotz, a teenage hacker known as Geohot, to unlock the iPhone shortly after it first debuted. Since then, there's been an ongoing competition as Apple plugged exploits with firmware updates and hackers found new ways to jailbreak and unlock iPhones. All along, Geohot has remained a leading figure in that battle.
Last month, when Apple updated the iPhone OS to 3.1.2, the company also rolled out an update to the baseband that silenced countless liberated iPhones around the globe. Geohot soon released a jailbreak for the new iPhone OS, but there was still no unlock available for the new 05.11.07 baseband. According to reports, Geohot had no plans to unlock the latest update, and many alarmists began to worry that the new baseband was impenetrable and their days of iPhone freedom might be over.
Then Geohot announced that he would release an updated version of his blackra1n jailbreak along with a new unlock, called blacksn0w, on November 4th. According to his blog:
- blacksn0w is the unlock for the latest 05.11.07 baseband, and will also enable official tethering.
- blackra1n, a jailbreak for 3.1.2, has been updated to RC3, with hacktivation support, 15 second speed improvement, Tiger+PPC support, and installation of the latest blackra1n.app.
Not to look like a slacker, he then bumped the release up a day to November 3, saying that his testing was going well. Working the crowd, he asked his fans and followers to tweet about the new release as the noon EST launch approached. Demonstrating that there is a sizeable community of users unlocking and jailbreaking their iPhones, blacksn0w became one of the top trending topics on Twitter.
We decided to give blackra1n RC3 and blacksn0w a shot - and they worked, unlocking our test phone in about one minute. And, unlike Geohot's first iPhone unlock, blacksn0w doesn't require a soldering iron. You just connect your iPhone to a system and run the executable that's available on Geohot's website.
And Geohot want to ensure that you can join the iPhone freedom corps for free. Geohot was offered a $10,000 award for the new jailbreak by Jody Sanders, who runs an iPhone unlocking business in the UK. But Geohot wanted nothing to do with Sanders, who has in the past been spotted claiming credit for other people's work, and taking money for software that's available for free.
So in a recent blog post, Geohot responded to Sanders's offer by saying: "I am declining your $10,000. Why? Because you, and the rest of the iPhone unlock sites out there are scum. You make money selling freeware; that's not cool, and I am in no way going to legitimize it. Seriously, the people who really lose here are the customers."
But the real winner here may be Apple, which can now sell even more iPhones to users who otherwise wouldn't be willing to work within the restrictions imposed by Apple and its authorized iPhone carriers. ®
you should try this some time...
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.
Re: I will not reduce my self to argumentum ad hominem
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.
I will not reduce my self to argumentum ad hominem.
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?