Jailbreak For A5 iOS Devices Released 169
tlhIngan writes "It certainly took long enough, but the untethered jailbreak for Apple's A5 based iOS devices (iPad 2, iPhone 4s) has been released (official site, struggling due to traffic). It's currently only available for OS X, though ports of it to Windows are forthcoming."
Re:Not being a troll, Serious question. (Score:5, Insightful)
Mod me down all you like,.. (Score:3, Insightful)
but goddamn do news posts like this make me â(TM)¥ my Galaxy S2, I owned 3 iphones, never again - EVER.
Re:Not being a troll, Serious question. (Score:5, Insightful)
So what you're saying is that Apple customers have not bought the operating systems for their devices, just the hardware?
Well, I haven't read the Apple EULA, but if it's like similar EULAs (and I assume it is) then the answer is yes. It's the same with Windows.
Re:Not being a troll, Serious question. (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course you own your own phone. You can make calls on it. You can run apps on it. You can smash it if you want. What else do you want?
Well, I'm a programmer, of the "system programmer" and "network programmer" variety. Apple (and/or my cell-phone company) doesn't permit me to write and test my own software on their phones, unless I pay a special price to get a temporary "developer" account. So no, with the standard contract, I don't "own" my phone in the way any programmer would mean by that word. Someone else has the legal right to deny me the ability to write the kinds of software that I make a living writing.
So to me, it's as if I were, say, a taxi driver, and I bought a new car, and found out that it didn't permit me to enter any taxi stands. To do that, I'd have to pay the auto maker an extra "professional driver" fee every year. Any taxi driver would say "WTF?!!", and ask some mechanics how to break that idiotic lock. Car makers have no right to restrict where we can drive their vehicles.
As a professional software geek, I respond the same way to the usual smart-phone "jail". An iPhone or iPad isn't a "computer" as I define the term. That is, it isn't programmable; it's a datacomm appliance, but not a computer. To get access to the (fairly powerful) computer hidden inside them, I have to pay an extra annual rental for a temporary permit to use them as my jobs require. "Buying" the gadget didn't give me the right to develop and test my software on them.
And yes, I have been bitten by this problem on several projects, where we bought "smart phones" for the explicit purpose of developing and testing software. With several of them, we proved eventually that our problems were due to the blocks that the vendors (well-known cell-phone companies) had installed, and didn't remove even when our employer paid their "developer" fees. Funny thing; when we proved to their support people that there were still blocks installed that explained why our stuff failed, they weren't the least bit apologetic. It's more like they were annoyed that we'd found out how they did it.
Re:Not being a troll, Serious question. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not being a troll, Serious question. (Score:4, Insightful)
I just want Apple to not actively work against me doing what I want with my phone. It's also not a huge ask to expect complete documentation.
And before you say "so don't buy one", I didn't and won't.