Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Cellphones Handhelds Iphone Apple

Verizon iPhone Is Now Jailbreakable 165

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the can-you-hear-me-now dept.
An anonymous reader writes "The Chronic Dev Team have rolled out Greenpoison RC5_4 aka Greenpois0n RC5 b4 for both the Mac and Windows platform, which brings untethered jailbreak for the Verizon iPhone." Since 500k iPhones were sold on the first day it'll be interesting to see how Verizon throttles users.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Verizon iPhone Is Now Jailbreakable

Comments Filter:
  • by Skarecrow77 (1714214) on Tuesday February 08, 2011 @11:48AM (#35139338)

    Go for it guys! Jailbreak your iphone all you want, completely legal! Ruled as such by the Library of Congress! ... why doing the exact same thing to the black sony box setting next to my tv isn't legal, I'll never understand.

  • by natehoy (1608657) on Tuesday February 08, 2011 @12:00PM (#35139518) Journal

    Just to play devil's advocate here, why should lock-down not be permitted?

    No, really. There are plenty of devices that you can buy that are not locked down. Most of the Nokia line offers non-locked-down phones. There are a decent handful of Android devices. Blackberries are generally available in an unlocked flavor.

    Yes, they are more expensive, but that's because you aren't being subsidized by a damned phone company when you get it. It's your phone, and all the features belong to you. The phone company can't turn off your GPS like Verizon likes to. They can't turn off the WiFi like AT&T likes to. You put their SIM in the phone and you use it for what you want to use it for, and pay accordingly.

    AT&T seems to welcome unlocked GSM phones (admittedly, their discount for using an unlocked unsubsidized phone is nonexistent, and they'll still force you on a data plan for certain phones whether locked or unlocked). From what I've heard, Sprint not only loves 'em, they offer a discount. There aren't as many unlocked phones available for Verizon, since they are LTE and the rest of the world is pretty much GSM, but it's not like there aren't offerings for unlocked phones.

    It's only the fact that we USAians are so used to having our phones subsidized that we've forgotten there is a whole universe of unlocked phones out there that we can use, if we want to get off the mobile carrier teat and buy them ourselves.

  • by betterunixthanunix (980855) on Tuesday February 08, 2011 @12:13PM (#35139682)

    I always wonder who these folks are that want to jailbreak for purposes other than unlocking

    How about to keep features that are arbitrarily taken away? I used to use my phone as a dialup modem, low bandwidth but enough to fetch some email, which is all I really want. My phone broke; my new phone is programmed to always say "CARRIER ERROR" when I try to use the modem feature. I am not paying less, and when I demanded an explanation, I was told that only people deploying telemetry devices or doing government work were allowed to use their phones in that manner, and that I should just sign up for mobile broadband.

    There is no technical reason for this restriction; jailbreaking can remove it. Why would I not jailbreak? The phone still has a built-in modem, the network still supports it, and the carrier is still going to get paid (since I use minutes just like I would for a voice call).

  • by elrous0 (869638) * on Tuesday February 08, 2011 @12:14PM (#35139704)

    Because Sony has more lobbying money to bribe Congress?

  • by natehoy (1608657) on Tuesday February 08, 2011 @01:45PM (#35141002) Journal

    The real question is, why should we not be allowed to disable their restriction systems and use the computers we buy in any manner we see fit?

    It's a condition of the subsidy.

    If you choose to have someone else pay for all or part of your telephone, how is it suddenly patently unfair that you have to live by the terms you agreed to when you accepted the subsidy? You had the choice of buying your own phone without the subsidy and the restrictions.

    I'm sympathetic to your point of view, but you did accept a discount in return for your vendor-locked phone. The restrictions are part of the package you seem to have agreed to.

    That's why my wife's phone is an unlocked one. Sure, it cost us more money up front, but we don't need a data plan for her smartphone (it's got WiFi, and she just uses data only when she's at home). We don't need a navigation plan for her GPS (it's got a GPS and mapping software with downloadable maps, so she doesn't need data to navigate). We only need a voice + SMS plan from AT&T, so that's what we bought. They hand us a SIM, we install the SIM in the phone, we turn off data from that SIM on the phone and tell AT&T to block data from their end, we place a test call, and we sign a month-to-month voice/SMS contract, shake the hand of the AT&T salescritter, and walk out the door with a working phone.

    If AT&T pisses us off, we go to someone else and get their SIM installed in my wife's phone instead.

    Sure, the phone cost us $250 and we could have gotten it for free. But we get to use ALL of the phone, not just the features that AT&T wants us to use. AT&T is merely providing voice for the phone. There's a second SIM slot so I could go out and buy a pay-per-use data plan if my wife really wanted one.

  • by BobMcD (601576) on Tuesday February 08, 2011 @01:50PM (#35141068)

    Depends on how means locked down:

    Wtf are you, a lawyer? White is white. Black is black. Words have meaning and only a lawyer can manipulate them to mean what they don't actually mean while everyone else has similar interpretations of the language we speak.

    The concept you're missing is called 'nuance'. Look it up.

    And if 'black is black' then what is Tiger Woods? Think about it.

Loan-department manager: "There isn't any fine print. At these interest rates, we don't need it."

Working...