Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Hardware Hacking Businesses Apple

Jail-Breaking iPhones at the Apple Store 162

Posted by CmdrTaco
An anonymous reader writes "According to an article in Xconomy, iPhone hacker and author Jonathan Zdziarski was invited to speak at an Apple Store in Cambridge, MA last week where he talked about the history of iPhone hacking, jail-breaking, and limitations of the official SDK. From the article, "Zdziarski was one of the first software engineers to figure out how to hack the iPhone, and he's the author of a forthcoming O'Reilly Media book called iPhone Open Application Development, which gives readers explicit instructions on jail-breaking iPhones. So for Apple to give Zdziarski the podium at an Apple retail location is a little like Steve Ballmer inviting Linus Torvalds to speak at a Windows product launch." Zdziarski reports in his own blog how the open source community was on the iPhone developer scene as early as 2007, long before enterprises got there, and estimates that nearly 40% of all iPhones have been jail-broken to run the third-party community software installer. Finally, this story from Top Tech News suggests that open source software might actually create competition for Apple's "official" developers, because applications using the open source iPhone compiler are not subject to the same limitations as official Apple SDK programs are."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Jail-Breaking iPhones at the Apple Store

Comments Filter:
  • by inTheLoo (1255256) on Saturday March 29, 2008 @12:05PM (#22905254) Journal

    Both Apple and ATT have non free practices at the core of their business. It is not surprising that they would each pretend to be more customer friendly than they really are. The iPhone suffers restrictions from both companies that are integral to each company's business model.

    It would be better to have free software [gnu.org] devices that could use free spectrum [reed.com]. This would remove the ability of others to restrict your communications and such things are vital if we are to undo the damage broadcast media has done to democracy.

    • by Telvin_3d (855514) on Saturday March 29, 2008 @12:54PM (#22905580)
      And people have tried to develop such devices. And no one has bought them. No one has bought them because the UI is bad, the industrial design is worse and when people have problems they are told to fix them themselves or to search the forums.

      Apple is extremely customer friendly. They make it easy and pleasant to use their devices for the purposes advertised. However, they are not particularly Open Source friendly. Not as bad as some, not as good as others. Open source and customer friendly occasionally overlap, but most open source is not particularly customer friendly and many of the basic devices that make our lives easier are not open source.
    • by s20451 (410424) on Saturday March 29, 2008 @12:57PM (#22905596) Journal
      I read the website to which you linked, and I was following along and kind of agreeing until the author says:

      The problem with his argument is that his understanding of information theory and communications is pre-Shannon - when we begin measuring the utility of the spectrum in terms of its information capacity and options to connect, rather than the number of frequency channels, the scarcity argument does not apply.

      This statement is bizarre to me because, according to Shannon, information capacity is directly proportional to bandwidth. So it seems like the scarcity in bandwidth also exists in information capacity. Care to comment?
      • by ceoyoyo (59147)
        Seems simple enough to me. The author is pretty weak on technical understanding, instead choosing to use fuzzy social arguments.

        Spectrum is like land. Its limited, and in demand. It can be public or private. If its to be useful at all, everybody has to agree on how it is to be used, otherwise the guy with the biggest gun (transmitter) wins.

        Like land, the solution is to both sell some of it (with specified requirements for how it is to be used) and to keep some of it for public use (with specified requir
    • by SoupIsGoodFood_42 (521389) on Saturday March 29, 2008 @01:05PM (#22905658)
      Pretend to be more customer friendly than they really are? From some of the anti-Apple stuff I've read on here, it seems that Apple is, in fact, more customer friendly than they appear to be. After all, if this was Microsoft or many other companies, I'm sure DMCA letters would have been sent out by now. I think it just goes to show that Apple are generally only as restricting as they need to be.

      Not all of us mind paying for software, you know. That's one thing I have never understood about the OSS movement -- that some people think that everything should be free and that anyone who tries to make a profit from software is somehow "bad". The two worlds can co-exist together.
      • by hitmark (640295)
        apple primary sell hardware, not software. as long as a jailbreak leads to a hardware sale, they are happy.

        and a jailbreak voids warranty iirc, so you cant go to them if a future update bricks your jailbroken phone.

        now, if someone found a way to copy the iphone software onto a similar hardware platform (like say the fic neo or freerunner) then i think the DMCA would be rattled.

        hell, just look how they hunt for insider identities, when just about every other corp just hands out the kind of info those insider
        • The lack of freedom in the Apple SDK is quite clear. "No background applications" kills off entire categories of useful software.

          I'm just waiting for Dan Eran to come in and explain to all of us how being forcibly restricted in software on hardware we paid for is really beneficial to us, we just don't know it.

          If Apple officially allowed the existence of jailbreak, with the caveat that you would lose all software support outside of "restore the iPhone to its original software load," none of this would be an
          • If Apple officially allowed the existence of jailbreak, with the caveat that you would lose all software support outside of "restore the iPhone to its original software load," none of this would be an issue.

            That's pretty much the existing policy [engadget.com]. Apple won't go out of their way to hinder jailbreaking efforts, but they won't support them or test iPhone updates against jailbroken phones either.

            • by hitmark (640295)
              in other words, its a cat and mouse game, just like with the appletv (basically a locked down mac mini ones one pop the cover).

              all this makes me suspect that if apple can get away with it, they will over time phase out the mac line of computers fully, and instead create a kind of console that they can better control.

              thing is that the appletv and the iphone do not have the legacy expectancy of the mac line. so if they can get people over on devices like the iphone and appletv like devices, most likely with a
            • It is not actually the existing policy. The existing policy is to stomp on jailbreak whenever convenient and engage in no communication with the community at all.
          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by DECS (891519)
            Since you asked for it:

            Phone 2.0 SDK: The No Multitasking Myth [roughlydrafted.com]

            The short version: remember the headlines gasping that the iPhone could have spy software installed that took pictures with its camera and mailed them to the Terrorists? That can't happen with SDK software. It can (hypothetically) happen with jailbroken phones. That's why Apple has engineered safeguards into its SDK. Because it's trying to be responsible, unlike the current state of Windows, Java, Flash and other filthy platforms.

            The fact that yo
            • You're such a shill. It's truly awe-inspiring. Can Apple EVER do anything wrong, Dan? Don't you think it's a little odd that they're always right? How incredibly unlikely! What possible confluence of events could have transpired to make one company always successful and always right in every policy?!

              My comments are already all over that entry, and I think those of us who support openness in the mobile application arena stomped all over the Apple apologists. Thanks for spamming your blog on Slashdot YE
              • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

                by DECS (891519)
                I do not comment on every issue related to Apple. I typically write about topics that either interest me, or are being falsely portrayed by idiots in the corporate media.

                Taking that into perspective, it's no mystery why I quite consistently side with Apple: I'm choosing between Apple and Idiots. There are plenty of valid criticisms of Apple, and I do take some effort to mention these when they haven't already been drummed to death.

                Calling me a shill just highlights that you don't know what a shill is. FYI:
                • by bnenning (58349)
                  I would say Apple's products are often better because it offers better control over your experience. That's why it "just works," and why DIY FOSS does not. There are great advantages to open ended freedom, but there are drawbacks too. Most people don't want a car that forces them to do daily maintenance on it for it to work.

                  This is the fundamental false dichotomy that Apple's defenders always end up at. There's no reason why a system can't be both simple for nontechnical users and powerful in the hands of a
            • by LKM (227954)
              THere are no safeguards in the SDK. It's all enforced by Apple's approving process. Also, no background apps sucks, plain and simple.
              • by DECS (891519)
                Distinguishing between the SDK and the signing/approval process is pedantic.

                And who can argue against such a sophisticated argument based entirely on a homophobic pejorative?
          • by Buran (150348)
            Stuff like this can and does change based on customer reaction. At first there wasn't going to be an SDK at all. Based on customer reaction, that changed. At first there wasn't going to be any Exchange support. That too changed. I certainly hope that future feedback will change this too.

            I'd share your cynicism if Apple hasn't already shown signs of listening to customers. If their argument that battery life is a concern is a valid one, hopefully future battery improvements and power management optimizations
      • by Anonymous Coward
        Not all of us mind paying for software, you know. That's one thing I have never understood about the OSS movement -- that some people think that everything should be free and that anyone who tries to make a profit from software is somehow "bad". The two worlds can co-exist together.

        When OSS people use the word "free", they are referring to freedom, not price.
        • I know. I should have been clearer. But the same thing still applies. I don't mind buying software and not having the source code or having certain licensing restrictions applied to it. Licensing restrictions are something I weight up among many other things. If I find the restrictions acceptable for my use, I have no problem agreeing to follow them. Perhaps it's because I'm a bit of a realist, and although I support the idea of OSS, I also don't have a problem with reasonable use of current IP laws. Of cou
        • When OSS people use the word "free", they are referring to freedom, not price.
          Actually, I doubt this is true (most of the time). There are some who are "true to the movement" who have freedom as a top priority, but I'll wager that most people who use OSS do so because it's free (beer) and/or they just like the software Just my observation; could be wrong.
          • by stokessd (89903)
            I think you are right. I am sensitive to the OSS movement and I've written some marginal code under the GPL. I use Linux, OSX and even XP at home; they each have merits. An example of your assertion is Firefox; I like that it's free, but I use it because it kicks ass. If it were free and sucked, I would be using something else. Free is a bonus for me, not a requirement. I guess I'm just a slashdot poseur then...

                Sheldon
      • by McDutchie (151611)

        That's one thing I have never understood about the OSS movement -- that some people think that everything should be free and that anyone who tries to make a profit from software is somehow "bad".

        No one in the Free Software and Open Source movements actually thinks that. Seems like you've fallen into the old Free vs. Free [wikipedia.org] trap. Freedom does not mean free of charge. What F/OSS proponents think is bad is restricting people from modifying the software they use as they see fit and from helping others with their

      • by v1 (525388)
        Many have also speculated that it was not Apple's desire to lock down the phone to the extent that it has been, and that AT&T has placed certain requirements on the iPhone that Apple believes is not in the best interest of their business model. It would not surprise me in the least that when the exclusive Apple / AT&T deal expires, we will see the iPhone immediately become a much more open platform. Surely not as open as everyone wants, but certainly more open than it currently is. But even then
      • by byolinux (535260) *
        Free Software is never about price, and always about freedom. Specifically, the freedom to run, modify, study and distribute software. Lots of people sell free software, and make money doing so -- earning money is a useful thing, but it should never be more important than freedom. If Apple can find a way to make money from iPhones whilst remaining free, that would be a good thing.

        One such way for Apple to do that would be to sell iPhones. Which they're already doing.
    • by pohl (872)

      Both Apple and ATT have non free practices at the core of their business. It is not surprising that they would each pretend to be more customer friendly...

      I should hope that they have non-free practices, given that a business is a money-making endeavor, and a customer is someone who pays for goods and services.

  • iPhone (Score:5, Interesting)

    by koan (80826) on Saturday March 29, 2008 @12:13PM (#22905302)
    Not jailbroken, an overpriced pretty piece of junk (yes I own one) jail broken and with installer, an awesome tool and I love it.
    I get the feeling Apple secretly likes the fact that it's been cracked and made useful, regardless of how ATT feels about it.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Overpriced pretty piece of junk? You mean to tell me that you don't use any of the features that the original phone comes with? You don't like to use wonderfully easy-to-use browser that zooms into the text you want to read (I love this feature)? You don't care for the way that the phone so elegantly fades the music in and out when answering calls? Don't you use the handy on-screen keyboard, the easily swapping orientation from portrait to landscape with a simple tilt of the phone? All this equals to j
      • Here is what gives (Score:4, Interesting)

        by StarKruzr (74642) on Saturday March 29, 2008 @03:36PM (#22906502) Journal
        Most Slashdot users are technical people. We find having an ssh client/server on the phone to be enormously useful. We like having access to the BSD underpinnings of the machine. We like being able to use AIM without going through a slow website. We like being able to stream music from our iPhones to computers at the houses that we're at with Firefly Media Server. We even like having MobileScrobbler around.

        And no, Apple's apps are not more refined than all the stuff on Installer. MobileScrobbler, Sketches, and MobileChat are examples of how you're wrong, especially when you compare them to something like MobileMail.app which STILL cannot delete multiple emails at once or switch between accounts in any kind of convenient way.

        The jailbreakers have, in fact, shown Apple up at every turn.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    This article is a hoax. iPhones are provably 100% secure.
  • by drhank1980 (1225872) on Saturday March 29, 2008 @12:23PM (#22905368)
    "So for Apple to give Zdziarski the podium at an Apple retail location is a little like Steve Ballmer inviting Linus Torvalds to speak at a Windows product launch."

    I would say very little like this if at all, when you use a hacked iphone you still had to shell out the bucks(to apple) for the device. When you run Linux you can completely avoid giving any cash to Microsoft.
    • by tonsofpcs (687961)
      I would say it is more like Dell inviting Linus to speak at a Dell product launch.
    • by HuguesT (84078)
      When you buy a new PC you still pay the MS tax regardless of whether you run Linux or Windows.
  • Riiiiiiight (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Twid (67847) on Saturday March 29, 2008 @12:27PM (#22905398) Homepage
    open source software might actually create competition for Apple's "official" developers

    Riiiiiiight, just like the homebrew scene creates competition for Sony, Nintendo, and the Xbox 360. If someone want to goof around with doing homebrew iPhone apps, great! But, there is no way that jailbroken apps will be any sort of successful business model for the iPhone. No business will pay for it or install it, and too few consumers will be brave enough to jailbreak. 40% of iPhones are jailbroken? Ridiculous.

    If devs really want to do open source phone applications why aren't they using Android or OpenMoko? :)

    • Re:Riiiiiiight (Score:5, Insightful)

      by FishWithAHammer (957772) on Saturday March 29, 2008 @12:30PM (#22905416)
      If devs really want to do open source phone applications why aren't they using Android or OpenMoko? :)

      Get back to me when there's actually a userbase for either.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by esquizoide (834082)
      At least in Chile, ALL the iPhones are jailbroken to work on our cellphone networks.
    • is what you get for synonyms when you look up "miserable failure" in the dictionary. What's it been, two years now, and there has been hardly any progress in the project? They're still working on the damn keyboard, ffs -- not that a virtual keyboard is of any use with a resistive touchscreen.

      I'm waiting for the last gasps of that project to finally expire. It is going exactly nowhere at about Mach 5.

      I was really excited when I heard about Android, and then I found out that everything runs in its own sepa
  • by 3-State Bit (225583) on Saturday March 29, 2008 @12:35PM (#22905462)
    This is not a mistake on Apple's part. Their contract with AT&T probably prevents them from releasing an unlocked phone within the time period of the contract, and if Apple were to release unlocking instructions themselves it would legally be almost the same as releasing an unlocked phone: ie contract violation. Instead, they have been careful to remain neutral about it, in order to respect their contract with AT&T. At the same time, they are very happy that people all over the world use (unlocked) iPhones, and Apple executives have probably spent a lot of time thinking about how they could have played the game differently with AT&T to still get the contract with them (which you'll remember took a major infrastructural investment on AT&T's part to bring the iPhone -- and only the iPhone -- visual voicemail) , while not having to wait on their laurels for third parties to purchase, unlock, and ship their phones to the rest of the world. It must be very painful to have to keep mum, when the whole world wants your product, and you have a contract you've signed in your home country that keeps you from giving it to them. The news that they are inviting a speaker who is active in iPhone unlocking just confirms this suspicion, and of course the biggest confirmation will be seeing if Apple suddenly changes policy upon the expiration of the AT&T contract. We don't know the terms of that contract, but it's safe to guess it's a 12, 18, 24, or 36 month contract. I'm betting it was a 12-month contract, which is a very long time in the mobile phone world, and that upon the anniversary of the release of iPhone you will see an end to the silence on Apple's part regarding unlocking.
    • You are mistaken. As yesterday's thread [slashdot.org] clearly demonstrates, Apple and its admirers are firmly on the side of restricting your devices for your own "protection".
      • by truthsearch (249536) on Saturday March 29, 2008 @01:06PM (#22905670) Homepage Journal
        A post on ZDNet and /. threads from anonymous internet users "clearly demonstrates" Apple's internal corporate policies and intentions? Are you serious? I would say this article "clearly demonstrates" the exact opposite. In other words, no one really knows if Apple is pleased with the situation or not.

        Personally, I think they are pleased, yet cautious. If they damage their relationship with AT&T they will not have future relationships with any carriers, and the iPhone will die. Yet the iPhone's popularity appears to be viral partly from unlocking. So they have to walk a fine line for now.
        • by joe 155 (937621)
          I would suggest that Apple aren't keen on jailbreaking and will be less so in the future. When it first came out it was easy to jailbreak them when they were using 1.1.1 firmware, and it has got steadily harder since. If you want to jailbreak an ipod touch/iphone you still have to downgrade to 1.1.1 so you can exploit a hack that they did fix in 1.1.2. I think this puts more people off than anything - I don't want to run a hacked firmware from a source I don't know on an application that I use to sign into
          • by bnenning (58349) on Saturday March 29, 2008 @03:20PM (#22906426)
            If you want to jailbreak an ipod touch/iphone you still have to downgrade to 1.1.1

            Not any more. With ziPhone, jailbreaking and unlocking any iPhone up to 1.1.4 is trivial; details here [unlock.no].
          • by Lars T. (470328)

            I would suggest that Apple aren't keen on jailbreaking and will be less so in the future. When it first came out it was easy to jailbreak them when they were using 1.1.1 firmware, and it has got steadily harder since.
            Jeez, there is that old "Apple is evil for fixing bugs" again.
          • by yabos (719499)
            Uhh, the 1.1.1 exploit was a security hole in the libtiff library that they use. Should they leave the phone open to remote buffer overflows and code execution so people can jail break it?
        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by catmistake (814204)
          I agree with you, and the (grand?)-parent post. Another glaring indicator by what Apple isn't doing is the lack of legal retaliation. Apple has a history of meticulously tracking down and punishing, or at the very least, settleing with NDA violators. If Apple cared about keeping the iPhone in-jail, or locked-down, we'd hear about it in the form of NDA and intellectual property lawsuits. But the Apple legal team is quiet... a little too quiet. The first Beta of the iPhone SDK appeared on torrents and usenet
        • by 0xdeadbeef (28836) on Saturday March 29, 2008 @01:30PM (#22905804) Homepage Journal
          No, their official statements and the EULA of the iPhone SDK demonstrate their policies and intentions. Have you not been paying attention?

          Wishing for something hard enough does not make it come true, and your speculation is just wishful thinking.
          • by ceoyoyo (59147)
            You have noticed the progression here, right?

            Apple at release: No third party apps.

            Apple a few months later: Web apps only.

            Apple a year later: Here's an SDK for third party development. There are a couple of restrictions. Yes, you may put wifi VOIP on the iPhone.

            Hm. Apple seems to be saying one thing and doing something entirely different. I wonder why?
            • by yabos (719499)
              The iPhone was clearly not ready for 3rd party developers at launch time so they gave you web apps to get by for a while. As the software and frameworks mature they open it up to 3rd parties.
              • by ceoyoyo (59147)
                There were no web apps at launch either. Apple specifically said there would NOT be an SDK for third party developers. Then there was a web SDK. Now there's a native SDK.

                Sure, maybe Apple was just stringing everybody along because they actually weren't ready. They tend not to release half assed products though. I suspect Apple wanted to test the market and gain a foothold. Now that the iPhone is a hit they feel more secure throwing their weight around and telling AT&T how it's going to be. After
      • Yeah, they are actually. They want to protect the user experience so that people don't end up with flat batteries in 30mins and stop using 3rd party apps or stop using their iPhone altogether. Those that really want to can always jailbreak their iPhone and manage the whole thing themselves. Or buy another product. Is this really so "evil"? Apple's decision is just a sound business decision, because that's what they are. No need to read any more into it than that....unless you're a conspiracy theorist.
    • they are very happy that people all over the world use (unlocked) iPhones, and Apple executives have probably spent a lot of time thinking about how they could have played the game differently with AT&T to still get the contract with them (which you'll remember took a major infrastructural investment on AT&T's part to bring the iPhone -- and only the iPhone -- visual voicemail)

      I'm always impressed at how some people can apparently divine altruistic motives from Apple's management decisions. Every un
      • by bnenning (58349)
        Every unlocked phone deprives Apple of a large chunk of potential revenue from the sale of its device in the form of monthly cash payments.

        Assuming that the purchaser would have still bought the iPhone even if she couldn't unlock it. That's unlikely in most cases, and impossible in nations that don't have official iPhone carriers. "Losses" due to iPhone unlocking are even less plausible than the inflated "losses" from software piracy.

        Apple's continued invocation of the Herculean nature of its visual voicema
        • "Losses" due to iPhone unlocking are even less plausible than the inflated "losses" from software piracy.

          I agree. However, over the past year, most of the dittoheads that "cover" Apple stock on TV and in the business magazines factored in every iphone sale according to the rosy future revenue stream projections that Apple gaves them. During November/December, these people (who tend to know very little about the actual dynamics of technology markets) became increasingly skittish because of news filtering out
  • hacking is niche (Score:4, Insightful)

    by dten (448141) on Saturday March 29, 2008 @12:59PM (#22905604)
    Open source/unlocked apps will be a competitive option only for those who have the technical gumption to risk bricking or otherwise crippling their phone, and the burden of time and attention required to learn how to uncripple it. This is acceptable to the hacker community, but not to the majority of iPhone users, who just want a stable, uninterrupted user experience.
    • Re:hacking is niche (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Tony Hoyle (11698) <tmh@nodomain.org> on Saturday March 29, 2008 @05:23PM (#22907204) Homepage
      Maybe in the US, but in the UK I can buy an unlocked and jailbroken iphone in the high street - and if what I've seen is anything to go by they're selling far better than the 'official' ones... and I dare say it's similar in the rest of europe too (where you can't even buy a non-jailbroken phone).

      These unlocked phones tend to have installer.app out of the box. So the apps are already part of the experience.

  • by wickerprints (1094741) on Saturday March 29, 2008 @01:50PM (#22905898)
    I keep seeing these two concepts being confused. Jailbreaking is the act of circumventing the original OS to run arbitrary code. Unlocking is the act of disabling the link between the handset and the AT&T SIM, thereby allowing the use of other mobile providers. The former does not imply the latter.

    I have said it before and I will say it again. Apple is a publicly held corporation. Their fiduciary duty is to their shareholders. Their goal is to be profitable. However, their business model (strategy of doing business in order to be profitable) centers around making well-designed, elegant, easy-to-use, robust products. (By 'robust' I mean in a design/UI sense, not necessarily in a hardware sense.) They believe that controlling and streamlining the entire consumer experience from start to finish is the best way to deliver their product--this is the reason behind the Apple Retail Stores, the near-obsessive attention to the packaging, and the restrictions of the iPhone OS. Make no mistake; Apple doesn't do this out of the goodness of their hearts. They do it because it is a way to stand out in a competitive and rapidly shifting industry, and be profitable. But this long-held strategy of attention to the consumer experience and design excellence has created a community of Apple enthusiasts, and they often misinterpret Apple as being more altruistic than they actually are.

    The hacker philosophy runs completely counter to Apple's view because they believe devices are meant to be experimented on, each component dissected, analyzed, and understood. They are unafraid of taking something apart and reassembling it to meet their needs. Apple's model is geared not towards these hackers, but to the average consumer, who, if allowed to tinker, would probably break something and have no idea how to fix it. The wildly popular success of iPods and the increasing market share of Macs in the face of the MS monopoly demonstrates that Apple's strategy is the correct one to adopt--the average user values stability and predictability over the ability to play Dr. Frankenstein with their precious, beautifully designed Mac/iPod/iPhone. The idea that "it just works" is in itself a kind of freedom.

    Apple knows they can't keep the iPhone OS locked down forever. They knew it before they even had built the thing. They realized, however, that (1) upon initial release, the OS would not be complete, (2) they needed to buy themselves time to establish a user base and fix stability issues, (3) locking the OS would prevent the casual user from messing around and then complaining that the iPhone sucks because it's too easy to break, (4) it fits with their business model. The only good thing the hackers/jailbreakers have done is to push Apple to develop the SDK faster, and put more emphasis on security. I don't see their actual jailbreaking as being particularly relevant, because it is still not something that most users would do. Many users so strongly enjoy the integrated, streamlined Apple experience that the last thing they want to do is run some "shady" code and open themselves up to the unknown. It all goes back to the philosophical dichotomy mentioned above.
    • by DannyO152 (544940)

      I'm with you until the last paragraph and there we diverge slightly. I think that, in keeping with the logic of your first two paragraphs and by observation, Apple is not interested in a give away the razor to sell the blades (software) business model. Someone buys an iPhone, it's profit. Someone uses that iPhone on AT&T, it's more profit. But I haven't seen an Apple product in ages where after-market purchases were needed to create a net profit. So, a person owning an unlocked iPhone is no more a "prob

    • The only good thing the hackers/jailbreakers have done is to push Apple to develop the SDK faster, and put more emphasis on security.

      They put more emphasis on locking it harder. That has very little to do with security.
  • by baka_toroi (1194359) on Saturday March 29, 2008 @01:56PM (#22905934) Journal
    Can anyone provide IPA on Zdziarski? Gee, that's seems unpronounceable
  • by foo fighter (151863) on Saturday March 29, 2008 @02:41PM (#22906206) Homepage
    This got cut from the submission:

    "And when I say it's like Torvalds speaking at a Windows launch what I mean is its not like that at all."
  • Bad Analogy (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Mr. Underbridge (666784) on Saturday March 29, 2008 @05:00PM (#22907014)

    So for Apple to give Zdziarski the podium at an Apple retail location is a little like Steve Ballmer inviting Linus Torvalds to speak at a Windows product launch."

    I'd say it's more like Citibank inviting Mitnick to talk about security, or the MPAA inviting DVD Jon.

  • I attended the event at the Apple Store. The event was an Apple iPhone SDK party sponsored by the Boston Chapter of Mobile Monday. Since it involved the Apple SDK, the event was conducted at the local Apple Store, a first for a Mobile Monday meeting. After the talk, and demos, there was a party at a nearby hotel. The hotel party was sponsored by local companies only, no known Apple involvement. Not sure if Apple had anything to do with the event other than supplying the location since it was celebratin

Some people carve careers, others chisel them.

Working...