# Hackers and jailbreaking



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

I don't get this whole thing. This week you have two goofs proudly announcing that they have hacked RIM's playbook and will release instructions on how to jailbreak the things. I don't get this. Its illegal for one, secondly they cannot make any money from the enterprise so what is it. Some kind of cyber dweeb circle jerk that they get to attend?

The whole thing seems pointless and a huge waste of time


__
Sensitive content, not recommended for those under 18
Show Content


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

Agreed. Assholes, the whole lot. How'd they feel if the tables were turned? 

Peace, Mooh.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

There are some skills that one can only acquire if you're willing to forfeit contact with "the outside world". For example bomb-making, or an uncanny ability to seamlessly photoshop Scarlet Johansen's face onto any pre-pubescent torso, male _or_ female. I'm thinking "the two goofs" are probably 98% of each other's human contact, apart from "Dwayne" and "Rick" in Bangalore, calling to ask if you want to upgrade your Rogers service.


----------



## Brennan (Apr 9, 2008)

Mooh said:


> Agreed. Assholes, the whole lot. How'd they feel if the tables were turned?
> 
> Peace, Mooh.


This seems a little harsh to me ... They've found a way to install unverified applications onto a tablet, not broken into someone's bank account.
Jailbreaking a device is not illegal anywhere in North America, so aside from voiding their warranty they've really done nothing wrong.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Brennan said:


> This seems a little harsh to me ... They've found a way to install unverified applications onto a tablet, not broken into someone's bank account.
> Jailbreaking a device is not illegal anywhere in North America, so aside from voiding their warranty they've really done nothing wrong.


I assume you can look at it two different ways. One view is that of a regular dude that gets turned on to jailbreaking his iPhone and thats one thing. Then you have these guys that are actually hacking into device hardware/software in order to allow for all these things. The makers of these devices spend millions of dollars in research and development, marketing etc etc. I think they have a right to make money from that. The kid that works at McDonalds part time and hacks these things does not. Thats my thoughts on it.


----------



## Guest (Dec 2, 2011)

GuitarsCanada said:


> I don't get this whole thing. This week you have two goofs proudly announcing that they have hacked RIM's playbook and will release instructions on how to jailbreak the things. I don't get this. Its illegal for one, secondly they cannot make any money from the enterprise so what is it. Some kind of cyber dweeb circle jerk that they get to attend?


It's illegal?

That's news.



> The whole thing seems pointless and a huge waste of time


Uh yea...sure.

_"Always thinking just behind some narrow door in all of his favorite bars, men in red woolen shirts are getting incredible kicks from things he'll never know."_


----------



## Guest (Dec 2, 2011)

GuitarsCanada said:


> I assume you can look at it two different ways. One view is that of a regular dude that gets turned on to jailbreaking his iPhone and thats one thing. Then you have these guys that are actually hacking into device hardware/software in order to allow for all these things. The makers of these devices spend millions of dollars in research and development, marketing etc etc. I think they have a right to make money from that. The kid that works at McDonalds part time and hacks these things does not. Thats my thoughts on it.


WTF do you think they're doing? They still have to *buy* a device. The makers get their money. Why can't I do what I want with some physical device I've bought? Imagine if you couldn't install anything but <choose horrible OS of your choice> on your PC? The one that it came with. That's essentially what's going on here. People are liberating the hardware from the software.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

iaresee said:


> WTF do you think they're doing? They still have to *buy* a device. The makers get their money. Why can't I do what I want with some physical device I've bought? Imagine if you couldn't install anything but <choose horrible OS of your choice> on your PC? The one that it came with. That's essentially what's going on here. People are liberating the hardware from the software.


Hey, thats not you up there in that pic is it?


----------



## Guest (Dec 2, 2011)

GuitarsCanada said:


> Hey, thats not you up there in that pic is it?


Aww damn dude, you've found me out! I don't own that red teddy any more though.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

iaresee said:


> Aww damn dude, you've found me out!


So basically what you are saying is these guys are all out there liberating the rest of us scum from the corporate greed mongers that create these devices and software? Just trying to understand the angle here. We should see them as hero's?


----------



## Guest (Dec 2, 2011)

GuitarsCanada said:


> So basically what you are saying is these guys are all out there liberating the rest of us scum from the corporate greed mongers that create these devices and software? Just trying to understand the angle here. We should see them as hero's?


I'm saying these guys are playing with the toys they bought. No indictment of RIM. No hero worship for them. They've done something technically interesting though.

Condemn what you don't understand, it's a great strategy. Go with it. It's working well for you.


----------



## Brennan (Apr 9, 2008)

GuitarsCanada said:


> So basically what you are saying is these guys are all out there liberating the rest of us scum from the corporate greed mongers that create these devices and software? Just trying to understand the angle here. We should see them as hero's?


I honestly can't tell if you're being facetious or not (I'm hoping you are).

RIM does not lose a cent from jail-broken phones/tablets. The only reason most manufacturers lock down their devices is to make them easier to support (which is why jail-breaking voids the warranty) as they know exactly what is installed. Apple being the exception, but they've lost every lawsuit they've raised trying to claim copyright infringement.

No one is saying you should worship these guys as heroes (or even care that they exist), but vilifying them for using a device that they bought with their own money in a way other than strictly stated in the instruction manual seems a little petty to me (they probably rip the tags off their mattresses too, the bastards!). They aren't heroes and they aren't villains, they're a couple of IT nerds who like to play with hardware and will likely in no way affect you or anyone you know ... in short, why do you give a shit either way?


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

iaresee said:


> I'm saying these guys are playing with the toys they bought. No indictment of RIM. No hero worship for them. They've done something technically interesting though.
> 
> Condemn what you don't understand, it's a great strategy. Go with it. It's working well for you.


I would not say I do not understand. Here is what I understand. Being in business means making money. The more money you make the better you are doing in business. Many businesses make most of their money after the original sale of equipment. The auto industry is the best example of that. These people that make these devices are no different. They have set up structures to get you to continue buying things. Apps, ring tones, covers, cases and you name it. This is smart business. Again, they are the ones that invested millions of dollars into the technology.

If a few guys (hackers) whatever you want to call them, would like to open up a business and offer everything to everyone free of charge that might be great for the consumer, not so great for the company. It's the guys that are not in business that see this as great. Nothing is free, somewhere along the line someone is paying. 

Given time, Apple, RIM and the rest of them will find newer ways of protecting its software and hardware and others will continue to try and defeat them. Its just a game. 

The other thing to consider is that untested and unverified apps and programs could shut you down. Apple for one is brutal with testing. They need to make sure that anything available from their store is compatible with the devices and wont cause any major melt downs. 

Its nothing new. People trying to get around a system. Cable TV, Satellite. Human nature I guess.

Those are just my thoughts on it. Others may have their opinions, no problem


----------



## Guest (Dec 2, 2011)

GuitarsCanada said:


> I would not say I do not understand.


From your OP:


> I don't get this whole thing.


----------



## jimsz (Apr 17, 2009)

GuitarsCanada said:


> I don't get this whole thing. This week you have two goofs proudly announcing that they have hacked RIM's playbook and will release instructions on how to jailbreak the things. I don't get this. Its illegal for one, secondly they cannot make any money from the enterprise so what is it. Some kind of cyber dweeb circle jerk that they get to attend?
> 
> The whole thing seems pointless and a huge waste of time


I think this might be similar to the Sony debacle in which hackers brought down the network in retaliation to someone who was charged with hacking a device. The point they are trying to make is that if someone purchases a product from Sony, for example, they should be allowed to do whatever they want with it. They are claiming that if Sony is charging them with criminal actions for hacking the device, then Sony continues to own the device long after it was bought and paid for.

They use examples of other products that consumers purchase in which modifications and changes are made. Can we say guitar amps, pedals and guitars, for example? If we buy an amp from Fender, is Fender going to prohibit us from modifying the amp and doing whatever we want with it? 


In this case, the Playbook was hacked to allow control of hardware components and the ability to put apps on it. That should be no problem at all.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

jimsz said:


> I think this might be similar to the Sony debacle in which hackers brought down the network in retaliation to someone who was charged with hacking a device. The point they are trying to make is that if someone purchases a product from Sony, for example, they should be allowed to do whatever they want with it. They are claiming that if Sony is charging them with criminal actions for hacking the device, then Sony continues to own the device long after it was bought and paid for.
> 
> They use examples of other products that consumers purchase in which modifications and changes are made. Can we say guitar amps, pedals and guitars, for example? If we buy an amp from Fender, is Fender going to prohibit us from modifying the amp and doing whatever we want with it?
> 
> ...


This is a good point. I would agree with the majority of that. I guess it depends alot on the original intended use put out by the manufacturer. I could never imagine Fender putting out a statement like this though when someone clipped out a death cap



> “Research In Motion (RIM) is aware of a claim made on Twitter by security researchers working together that suggests the ability to “jailbreak” a BlackBerry PlayBook tablet. The term “jailbreaking” is commonly used to describe altering the software on a smartphone or tablet in order to obtain access to systems or applications not officially authorized or distributed by the manufacturer. BlackBerry smartphone users are not affected. RIM is currently investigating this claim and has been in contact with one of the security researchers to discuss it.
> RIM is currently not aware of a jailbreak being leveraged by anyone other than the researchers, who claim to have performed a jailbreak on their own BlackBerry PlayBook tablets only. If it is determined that the claim is accurate, RIM will follow its standard response process to develop and release a software update that is designed to minimize adverse impact to our customers or carrier partners. RIM is aware that the security researchers have stated they intend to release a tool to jailbreak the BlackBerry PlayBook tablet. If such a tool is released, RIM will investigate it.
> The security of mobile devices and major networked systems is tested by third-party security researchers every day. RIM also continually tests the security of its own products, and volunteers its products to recognized industry experts for security testing and certification to help identify possible issues. RIM is committed to the BlackBerry PlayBook tablet and to working with researchers to continue to protect our customers.”


The key statement in all of this is "not officially authorized or distributed by the manufacturer" in other words the guys that made all the investment and want to continue making money from that investment as the devices are being used. This might continue down the legal path over the years but you cannot blame these guys for wanting to protect their investment and make further money on add-ons


----------



## jimsz (Apr 17, 2009)

GuitarsCanada said:


> This is a good point. I would agree with the majority of that. I guess it depends alot on the original intended use put out by the manufacturer. I could never imagine Fender putting out a statement like this though when someone clipped out a death cap


True. What the hackers are trying to point out is corporate greed, that if you purchase a product, you must pay for any changes or modifications to the product afterward. 

In the case of an amp, Fender would not allow us to change the tubes or capacitors without their explicit consent and instead charge us a fee for doing so. In fact, they may not even touch the amp afterward to repair it if they found we had even opened it up. I had that exact issue with a PS3 I bought that eventually died. Since the warranty expired, Sony's first question to me was if I had broken the seal and opened it up. If I did, they wouldn't touch it.

Sony is absolutely vicious with this issue, hence the reason hackers tore down their network. Can you imagine if Fender, Gibson, Marshall, etc. had the same policies?


----------



## gtrguy (Jul 6, 2006)

GONE


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

jimsz said:


> True. What the hackers are trying to point out is corporate greed, that if you purchase a product, you must pay for any changes or modifications to the product afterward.
> 
> In the case of an amp, Fender would not allow us to change the tubes or capacitors without their explicit consent and instead charge us a fee for doing so. In fact, they may not even touch the amp afterward to repair it if they found we had even opened it up. I had that exact issue with a PS3 I bought that eventually died. Since the warranty expired, Sony's first question to me was if I had broken the seal and opened it up. If I did, they wouldn't touch it.
> 
> Sony is absolutely vicious with this issue, hence the reason hackers tore down their network. Can you imagine if Fender, Gibson, Marshall, etc. had the same policies?


I would agree 100% and I am sure that if Fender could find a way to do that, and enforce it then they would. I won't argue about corporate greed. But that is the reason for being in business. To make money. At the same time I do respect the fact that these companies put in a tremendous amount of money to develop these things. They have a right to protect their software etc. Also, we are the ones that have to pay for all of it as well. The cost of protection, investigation, patches, teams to do all of this is passed along to the consumer. Legal battles etc etc. 

I don't know if its right or wrong... seems wrong to me but who am I


----------



## Guest (Dec 2, 2011)

Do you own stock in RIM? You seem overly eager to defend them at all costs and vilify anyone who doesn't also put them up on the pedestal of glory you put them on?

Ouch: http://www.google.ca/finance?client=ob&q=TSE:RIM down almost 8% today, 17.31 right now with their 52-week high at ~$70 a year ago. There's got to be a lot of pissed off share holders! They've got a _half-billion dollar_ excess of PlayBook stock. They'll be missing their year-end target by quite a margin. If you ask me: people being able to more than what RIM originally intended they able to do with their devices can only help them sell more product. And right now, they need to sell more product.


----------



## bluzfish (Mar 12, 2011)

If I left the back door of my house open, I would rather have a friendly neighbour come to my front door and tell me than have a thief discover the open door and come in to steal my stuff. I think that consumers and corporations alike should be thankful that some bedroom hacker expose system weaknesses rather than have some criminal or serupticious agency or competitor find it and exploit it. For instance, if I can be watched, listened to or spied on without my knowlege or consent, I would like to know about it. Likewise, manufacturers should be glad someone found a hole in their security and told them about it, rather than exploit it without their knowlege. It's up to them to fix the flaw they created and they are fair game for it's discovery.


----------



## gtrguy (Jul 6, 2006)

GONE


----------



## 4345567 (Jun 26, 2008)

__________


----------



## bluzfish (Mar 12, 2011)

In the immortal lyrics of Leon Russell - "If I don't do it, someone else will..."


----------



## jimsz (Apr 17, 2009)

GuitarsCanada said:


> I won't argue about corporate greed. But that is the reason for being in business. To make money.


Very true. Expanding on the 'corporate greed' part has a lot to do with market share and competition; corporate wars, for lack of a better term. Sony and Microsoft, for example, have been at it for a long time. Although Windows operates just fine on a Sony brand computer, I still can't get Windows to recognize and work with a Handicam, and they still haven't made a PlayStation version of Halo. It's like the Hatfields and the McCoys all over again.

From that standpoint, it's not difficult to see why companies place security precautions on certain hardware and software products and make it illegal to circumnavigate those precautions. 



> At the same time I do respect the fact that these companies put in a tremendous amount of money to develop these things. They have a right to protect their software etc. Also, we are the ones that have to pay for all of it as well.


Agreed. They do have the right to protect their products. The question posed by hackers though is what "exactly are we paying for?" Do we own the product or does the manufacturer continue to own the product after it's sold. Why can I modify my Sony laptop to my hearts content, but I'm not allowed to even open up my PS3?

I think it's an important question for consumers. The hackers who are offering diy videos are doing so to raise attention to that question, imo. They aren't looking for money, they're looking for martyrdom. 

On the flip side, I certainly don't agree with the hackers (Anonymous) who brought down the Sony network in retaliation. That was very bad PR move on their part and their cause kinda backfired on them as a result.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

bluzfish said:


> If I left the back door of my house open, I would rather have a friendly neighbour come to my front door and tell me than have a thief discover the open door and come in to steal my stuff. I think that consumers and corporations alike should be thankful that some bedroom hacker expose system weaknesses rather than have some criminal or serupticious agency or competitor find it and exploit it. For instance, if I can be watched, listened to or spied on without my knowlege or consent, I would like to know about it. Likewise, manufacturers should be glad someone found a hole in their security and told them about it, rather than exploit it without their knowlege. It's up to them to fix the flaw they created and they are fair game for it's discovery.


This a fabulous example of how these people can put their talents to great use and get paid for it. Put in an application to RIM or Apple


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

i get that companies should get paid for and protect proprietary tech, but when they do $hit like this, it's hard to sympathise. I get that they want to understand why calls are dropped and such, but saving searches and text messages? Isn't that blatant invasion of privacy?


----------



## hollowbody (Jan 15, 2008)

jailbreaking phones is no different from people years ago testing out different operating systems like linux on their PCs. You didn't have to stick with Windows. Even before when DOS ruled the OS markets, you could easily write code for it to do what you wanted it to do on startup, etc. - I remember spending lots of time editing my config.sys file and create .bat files to run various memory expansion programs to optimize my computer for running Doom. None of these is illegal, neither is jailbreaking a phone.

The thing is that these days, manufacturers are limiting _how_ you can do this. No optical drives on devices, OSes that are integrated into the chipset, etc. It's all becoming very proprietary, which I understand from the business point of view, but hey, if I want to do something with my phone/PC/blender and I have a way of doing it and it's beneficial to me, no one's going to stop me from doing it. 

Besides, how many of you have changed pickups on your guitars?

fwiw - I jailbroke my phone, didn't really see the point, and switched back to regular iOS. I don't use enough apps to make it worth my while. Just because I _can_ do it doesn't mean I _will_ even though I'm predisposed to it because I think it's fine.


----------



## hollowbody (Jan 15, 2008)

GuitarsCanada said:


> This a fabulous example of how these people can put their talents to great use and get paid for it. Put in an application to RIM or Apple


Who do you think the best hackers are? They work security for large companies or the gov't. Or at least that's what TV and movies have taught me, though it stands to reason.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

GuitarsCanada said:


> I would not say I do not understand. Here is what I understand. Being in business means making money. The more money you make the better you are doing in business.


that's morally deficient. the entire issue with corporate greed is the notion that the point of being in business is to make money. i say that's the wrong reason to be in business. making money is certainly important. however, if it was always the case with all businesses, there are many wonderful things we take for granted which would not exist. many technologies developed outside of corporations. it's just spin that wants you to think that only corporations should explore and innovate.
if hitler had any decent economic advisers, he would have become a multi national corporation. it's way easier to control people with money than it is to control them with violence.

as for the hacking/jailbreaking? i'm glad there are people doing it. we need people who want to know...stuff.
these people should be encouraged. i'm still running xp on an old *@#$*. classic example of someone who don't want people pokin around inside of their stuff. i've done just about everything to this computer you might want to do, out of what can be done. to me that's the whole point of buying a desktop pc. so i can make it do what i want it to do, and change it as my needs change, at my own pace.

_hey what the heck is that? i wrote the name of the computer and it turned it into a link to their site. 
where do they get the right to use my post to advertise their crap? i don't really like that. is there a way to turn that off? holy smokes!_


----------



## Ti-Ron (Mar 21, 2007)

iaresee said:


> I'm saying these guys are playing with the toys they bought. No indictment of RIM. No hero worship for them. They've done something technically interesting though.
> 
> Condemn what you don't understand, it's a great strategy. Go with it. It's working well for you.


I'm with you on this!
Hey gang, don't forget without those "dumb geeks" all thoes technology you are sitting on would never exist!


----------



## Ti-Ron (Mar 21, 2007)

GuitarsCanada: Do you use open source programs like Android, OpenOffice or the like? Those things are free and made by hackers or whatever you can call them!


----------



## bluzfish (Mar 12, 2011)

hollowbody said:


> Who do you think the best hackers are? They work security for large companies or the gov't. Or at least that's what TV and movies have taught me, though it stands to reason.


Just like many talented musicians, many talented "hackers" have no desire to work in a corporate structure (read controlling major recording studio for musicians or electronics megacorp for hackers). Even if they wanted to, many don't have the resume or book lernin' to be accepted into that world. So they just keep doing what they do because they love to do it. If they hack into my personal computer to distribute spam, I say string up the little [email protected]#$%s but if they hack into the depths of a supposedly secure computer system and post a porno pic, I have to laugh about the fact that all the computer wizards in the company's employ missed that back door. Now they can lock it up and be confident that avenue into their system can now be closed.


----------



## fretboard (May 31, 2006)

Good read so far - I've been passed by with the techno-stuff since staying home to raise the kids (I think they're somewhat ashamed Daddy doesn't use the camera on his phone, since he actually still has a separate camera). No idea jailbreaking was anything other than breaking out of jail to be honest.

But since this is a music/musician's sorta site, can someone break this down in "musician speak" for me? Like, we're all cool with writing, recording and selling original music (not that we do that to get paid, we're artists after all) and then letting the world do as they please with it? Sample a riff here, rename a song and sell it as your own - that kinda stuff? I mean, they paid their money to buy it, so it's all cool as long as there's a receipt for it, right?

I've had this awesome idea of writing a tune about a stairway - a stairway to heaven... I'm thinkin' of learning how to play the recorder just to give it that added little sparkle. Hope those self-righteous, wantin'-to-get-paid-for-original-material dudes from Metallica don't try and sue me.

Or do I have to stop at the "changing tubes in the amp" or "changing pickups in a guitar" analogy before taking it down to individual songs? 

This all seems very "Global Thermonuclear War" to me and Joshua is asking if I wouldn't rather play a nice game of chess.


----------



## Shark (Jun 10, 2010)

Most major innovations have come from people working out of their garages, basements, etc., rather than in big businesses or governments. In fact, most corporations resist innovation and experimentation.


----------



## 4345567 (Jun 26, 2008)

__________


----------



## hollowbody (Jan 15, 2008)

fretboard said:


> But since this is a music/musician's sorta site, can someone break this down in "musician speak" for me? Like, we're all cool with writing, recording and selling original music (not that we do that to get paid, we're artists after all) and then letting the world do as they please with it? Sample a riff here, rename a song and sell it as your own - that kinda stuff? I mean, they paid their money to buy it, so it's all cool as long as there's a receipt for it, right?
> 
> I've had this awesome idea of writing a tune about a stairway - a stairway to heaven... I'm thinkin' of learning how to play the recorder just to give it that added little sparkle. Hope those self-righteous, wantin'-to-get-paid-for-original-material dudes from Metallica don't try and sue me.


by and large, jailbreaking a phone is about making it open-source - ie free. No one is making a profit off it. There are apps you can purchase specifically for a jailbroken phone, but that doesn't take money OUT of Apple's pocket (or RIMs) because their phone natively does not do these things, so they don't have equivalent products. 

The whole open-source movement is about sharing information and making products that people can use for free without having to sacrifice functionality. Open Office is a great example. You can shell out a few hundred for MS Office, or you can use Open Office for nothing. If you like it, the developers ask for a donation. Ditto open-source operating systems like Ubuntu and others.

This isn't about taking someone else's idea and making money off it - those people are the ones making cheap iPhone knock-offs in China and marketing them as the real deal. This is about using existing technology in a way the developer didn't originally intend. 

For example, the iPhone is a slick piece of gear and using one is pretty intuitive, but certain things needed to be improved. One of the 3rd party apps available to jailbroken phones was lockscreen which made the default lock screen on the iPhone a useful and informative screen instead of the default screen. As a result, Apple implemented this into their new iOS5. The "hackers" made the product better and Apple took THEIR idea and made it their own. Who's stealing from who now? Not that any of the jailbreak app developers are going to complain. To them, it's a huge feather in their cap to be able to say that the big corporation liked their idea enough to implement it in an update. Also, realistically, being able to look at what's out there in jailbreak-land and mimic it certainly cuts down some of Apple's (or RIM's) R&D spending. Why dump coin into developing new interfaces or apps when others are doing it for you. It's a symbiotic relationship that is far more advantageous to the big corporations then they are willing to admit. 

Plus, it's innovation. I will never look down on another human for creative thought that results in something new to bring to the world, regardless of its practicality. It's what makes us human.


----------



## bluzfish (Mar 12, 2011)

Here's a personal anecdote. In the 80's and 90's computer techs were far and few between and I managed to finesse my way into a company that manufacured and serviced military grade computer equipment for banks, utility and insurance companies, etc. One night on the onsite graveyard shift, I was playing with the commands and utilities just to learn how they worked so I could use them better.

Stumbling around through the system, I found myself in the middle of a secure programmer's section that gave me access to all the commands broken down into machine language which I had come to learn. I studied how they were assembled to do what they did and thought it would be funny to create a command of my own to amuse myself. Bad idea. I created a command that would show a little rocket ship taking off and then after a few seconds re-appear and crash into a million bits on the screen. Thats it.

So one day one of the programmers was onsite and I thought I would impress him and give him a bit of a laugh. When he saw it he was furious and immediately reported me to my superiors and it eventually even got to the CEO. I was raked over the coals and almost fired but for the intervention of my immediate boss. They never asked me how I did it or challenged me to do it again so they could fix the breach. They just told me to never tell anyone, especially a customer what I had found or I would be charged and prosecuted for tampering with their system. They even had me sign a piece of paper. That's why I never had kids. I think I signed away my first born to them.

All they wanted to do was cover up one of their system's flaws so they could sell more of the same systems to more customers. And I wonder if anyone else ever found what I found and if all those banks, utility companys, etc. were ever unknowingly compromised because of what the company I worked for wouldn't tell them.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Ti-Ron said:


> GuitarsCanada: Do you use open source programs like Android, OpenOffice or the like? Those things are free and made by hackers or whatever you can call them!


Nope. Never have thus far


----------



## gtrguy (Jul 6, 2006)

GONE


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

Well, it seems like no one agrees with me here but I'll try to elaborate my position then go sit in the corner. It may be old fashioned reasoning, but I believe as I was taught that if something is not your business, you do not tamper with it. Legality issues aside, that'll be for either criminal or civil procedure to determine if the parties proceed, the hackers (if that's the right expression, I don't travel in that world) weren't minding their own business. If they didn't like the product, it's uses, manufacture, manufacturer, or whatever, why bother with it? Why not apply their effort to something else? I admit I don't understand the technical stuff, even after twice reading through this thread, so I'm more than willing to wear the dunce cap when I sit in the corner.

Peace, Mooh.


----------



## 4345567 (Jun 26, 2008)

__________


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Certainly a good debate


----------



## keto (May 23, 2006)

So, interesting discussion. I've not had a phone or other device jailbroken, and had only a superficial (but correct) understanding of the point. I get it. Does Apple, then, say that jailbreaking phones is _illegal??_ Has RIM made that assertion?

Sorry I didn't quote it, but, if you haven't, go have a look at Starbuck's link on page 3..._extremely_ interesting, I bet you and many millions of others didn't know your every single text, email, surfing experience, etc, was being logged and reported to the phone manufacturer. How does that make you feel? Shit like that is why I don't use a) myspace b) facebook c) Google Chrome - yes, it tracks your every move and possibly, if I remember my reading right, your offline computer activities.

Open source is definitely legit...many distros of Linux are open source, Gimp is legit (and comes highly recommended, though I haven't used it) and Open Office, which I have used, is also legit and with no copyright infringement issues ever, that I am aware of.

To whoever posted about the innovator in his garage or basement, do you not think most of them had a dream about hitting life's big lotto with their product? Yes, they were maybe improving an existing product or service, in some few cases for their own purposes with no thoughts of commercialization. I venture to say though that the vast majority were done with the idea of commercializing for profit....yes, I believe profit is the very reason for being in business, unless you are a charity or other specifically not-for-profit enterprise. Unless I were already independantly wealthy, I'm not going to start a business for the purpose of a) employing people off the street so _they_ can make a living, or b) giving away my product or service. Free market all the way. If it's too expensive, don't buy it...but don't steal it, either. Do you think the great Steve Jobs made all the products our world revolves around these days for nothing? A few months ago, Apple had _more cash on hand than the United States Government!_


----------



## Shark (Jun 10, 2010)

keto said:


> To whoever posted about the innovator in his garage or basement, do you not think most of them had a dream about hitting life's big lotto with their product? Yes, they were maybe improving an existing product or service, in some few cases for their own purposes with no thoughts of commercialization. I venture to say though that the vast majority were done with the idea of commercializing for profit....


Oh, I didn't mean to suggest that they were doing what they do for totally altruistic purposes. Mostly though, it's about the challenge and sometimes the social recognition, rather than the money. But even that is not the point. The point was that in an earlier post it was said that hackers should get corporate jobs and go legit. Perhaps get a haircut, too.  My point was that most of the time, corporate environments stifle creativity. And 99% of the time people do this stuff because they enjoy the challenge and freedom of exploring their own ideas.

FOR EXAMPLE

Like I said before, most of the greatest scientific breakthroughs have come from people working outside of official environments. There is a reason for that.


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

I thought the difference here was that the item in question had some form of legal intellectual property protection. That wouldn't stop me from tinkering with the item in my possession (and yes I mod virtually everything I own), but it would stop me from distributing the information. If not, then mod away and I totally reverse my position and eat crow while I sit in the corner with my dunce cap.

There is also the matter of intent. Did they intend to undermine, disadvantage, impede, defraud, or otherwise interfere?e If so, then someone's not entirely innocent.

Peace, Mooh.



nkjanssen said:


> To use an analogy already used, would you not then ever modify an amp to, say, to run on 6L6's instead of 6V6's? It's probably something the manufacturer never intended it to be used for. Should you just respect the original manufacturer's wishes and "mind your own business"? Or do you think it's OK to mod the amp you bought so it better suits your needs?


----------



## 4345567 (Jun 26, 2008)

__________


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

nkjanssen said:


> Jailbreaking a Blackberry device is not illegal.
> 
> RIM doesn't like it, but it's not illegal.


Okay. To do so with malicious intent, if it was, is that ethical?

Peace, Mooh.


----------



## 4345567 (Jun 26, 2008)

__________


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

nkjanssen said:


> What's the malicious intent? Wanting to run non-RIM approved apps on your device and also let others know how to do it? I think that's really stretching the definition of "malicious".


Distributing the process so as to deliberately and negatively affect the salability and/or marketability of the product, that's all. Were they trying to hurt the company this way or not? If not and if it doesn't hurt the company, then okay. Crow starts to look pretty appetizing.


----------



## Guest (Dec 3, 2011)

Its pretty simple. RIM and Apple want everything to go through them. They want all programs and software that runs on their equipment to be put through them. Its not cheap to develop apps and its not cheap to get them on iTunes. Plus you pay a yearly fee to have your apps listed on iTunes. Its all about the money. Of course they want control over it all.


----------



## 4345567 (Jun 26, 2008)

__________


----------



## Stratin2traynor (Sep 27, 2006)

To me, jailbreaking a Playbook, iPhone (name your device) is no different than modding a pedal, changing pickups on a Gibson Les Paul, or flipping your Strat upside down and restringing it. The people who bought these devices can do whatever they want with them. I've had more than one person ask me WTF was wrong with the guitar, amp or pedal I modded. Nothing really, I just wanted to mess with it. My 2 cents.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Some background info for those interested.


The US decision on jailbreaking


> Federal regulators lifted a cloud of uncertainty when they announced it was lawful to hack or “jailbreak” an iPhone, declaring Monday there was “no basis for copyright law to assist Apple in protecting its restrictive business model.”Jailbreaking is hacking the phone’s OS to allow consumers to run any app on the phone they choose, including applications not authorized by Apple.
> 
> The Electronic Frontier Foundation asked regulators 19 months ago to add jailbreaking to a list of explicit exemptions to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s anti-circumvention provisions.At stake for Apple is the very closed business model the company has enjoyed since 2007, when the iPhone debuted. Apple says it’s unlawful to jailbreak, (.pdf) but has not taken legal action against the millions who have jailbroken their phones and used the underground app store Cydia.
> 
> ...


----------



## Guest (Dec 3, 2011)

Mooh said:


> Distributing the process so as to deliberately and negatively affect the salability and/or marketability of the product, that's all. Were they trying to hurt the company this way or not? If not and if it doesn't hurt the company, then okay. Crow starts to look pretty appetizing.


They're not trying to hurt the company. They're trying to do more with the hardware they purchased. You do these things in steps. The first step is to get *any* code running on the OS, so you don't need to seek out RIM's "permission" to do what you want with the device. The next step is to find a way to trick the bootloader in to running your OS instead of RIMs OS, truly liberating the device. I suspect it won't be long before you'll find news of Android running on PlayBooks -- that'll be great. Android is an excellent open source, mobile OS platform. A good fit for a PlayBook if you don't like what you get with the default RIM OS.

Really this is no different than the discussion mhammer and Player99 are having over here about how to add a blend function to his software-based (because it's DSP) leslie emulation pedal. He needs it to do something it doesn't and to modify only affects him (he loses his warranty on the device), not the company. There's no harm to RIM here. If anything it'll help them unload a few more of those duds they call PlayBooks because now people can do more with them (because the software RIM supports on them is quite limited and quite sucky). This has been, for many decades now, how we make leaps and bounds forward in software and hardware. Someone builds something and someone else tries to use it for a purpose it wasn't intended -- pushes the technology further than anyone had envisioned.

Indeed, this very website, runs on software that came in to existence and evolved under the same "jail breaking" auspices of this RIM hack. When Linux was in its infancy, back in the 90's. if you wanted to run it you had to do a lot of your own work to make it function on your hardware. You had to reverse engineer your graphic card's capabilities and code your own drivers. You had to deal with the idiosyncrasies of different network cards. You had to hack it all together yourself; "jailbreak" your hardware from the confines of Windows so that you could work with Linux.

Of course, we take this for granted now. That Linux exists and supports a massive array of hardware components seems commonplace. Companies even release their own drivers (closed and open source) for Linux now. But that wasn't even close to commonplace 10 years ago. The revolution of a free operating system took the hackers and jailbreakers to bring it in to its own.

GuitarsCanada.com runs on Linux and Apache -- both open source, built and maintained by hackers -- see:

Server for http://www.guitarscanada.com is running Apache/2.2.20 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.2.20 OpenSSL/0.9.8e-fips-rhel5 mod_auth_passthrough/2.1 mod_bwlimited/1.4 FrontPage/5.0.2.2635


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Right, wrong or indifferent you do understand where RIM and Apple are coming from though? Who knows where this will all play out in the end. This is a new and relatively young technology. The things to come will be amazing I am sure. At the bottom of all of it is money. The big question is, and I am not sure it can be completely answered at this stage, is who is going to control it? 

There are clearly two sides to this debate. Those that would say the companies that create the devices have the rights to make all the money from add-ons. The others that say they do not. One thing is certain, I dont think the battles are over yet for control of all that cash. Music, Games, Apps, Media of all kinds. Its going to be interesting to watch and see what happens.

I was just reading about the new Amazon Fire tablet which is essentially nothing but a portal to everything that Amazon sells. Instead of downloading its streaming.


----------



## 4345567 (Jun 26, 2008)

__________


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

nkjanssen said:


> Of course. They want to be the sole suppliers of apps to their respective devices. That gives them a piece of the action for every sale. That equals more money. They are in business to make money, and controlling the app distribution allows them to make more. Nothing wrong with wanting that. What manufacturer wouldn't like to completely control what their customers could and couldn't do with a product already purchased?I tend to side with the consumer on this, though.


Exactly, so for those that are saying that it does not hurt those companies in any way they are wrong. It is taking money right out of their pockets. Now again, right or wrong, that's anyone's opinion and both have meat to them. But they are in a battle for a ton of cash so make no mistake about that.


----------



## 4345567 (Jun 26, 2008)

__________


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

This has been quite an education today. Thanks folks!

Peace, Mooh.


----------



## Guest (Dec 3, 2011)

GuitarsCanada said:


> Exactly, so for those that are saying that it does not hurt those companies in any way they are wrong. It is taking money right out of their pockets. Now again, right or wrong, that's anyone's opinion and both have meat to them. But they are in a battle for a ton of cash so make no mistake about that.


This argument is absurd.

Imagine if you could only buy furniture from the Monarch store after you bought a Monarch-built house? Or if only GM-approved mechanics could work on your car?

Consumer rights trump a company's pursuit of profit. We have laws to ensure this. Once you buy something it is yours to do with as you please. Companies may wish this wasn't so, but thankfully it is. How you choose to use the computer in your pocket should not be dictated solely by the company who built it.

I shudder at the thought of a world in which Dell was able to exercise such control over the computers it builds.

RIM has enjoyed a monopoly thus far because their computer is highly specialized. But no longer. And that's a good thing (and not anywhere near illegal).


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

microsoft is successfully doing the same thing with games for windows live. take microsoft flight simulator X, for example.
realeased at the end of 2006, it was buggy, and nearly unusable at the specs listed on the box. in fact there wasn't a computer available to the general public that could run the game full boogie until a couple years ago. there is a huge aftermarket of add on aircraft, scenery, and other stuff. microsoft decided to end this by firing the development team and starting the next version called _FLIGHT. _flight is run on windows live, and industry rumor says that like many console systems, if you add anything to the game, it's considered a cheat and they shut you down. this shuts out the aftermarket and kills development that would improve the game/sim experience for the end user. it's wrong, it's greedy, and needs to be stopped.


----------



## 4345567 (Jun 26, 2008)

__________


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

It's a win for rim.They sell more devices to geeks, and if anything goes wrong with their crappy hardware, they don't have to support it if it's been tampered with. So, they could potentially sell even more if their units get bricked, or at least have to replace fewer of them under warranty.And I've owned enough of rims products to know what crap they are.

It's no different than if I hot rod my cars motor....of course the manufacturer wants me to use only oem parts, but if I don't,they get even by not supporting/warrantee ing my purchase. In essence, the customer and vendor go their separate ways and the original contract is terminated. But has a crime been committed? No. It's my decision whether or not I should be obligated to only buy additional services or products from the oem. A customer shouldn't be held hostage by the oem indefinitely.


----------



## Guest (Dec 4, 2011)

nkjanssen said:


> I'm kind of amazed that these seems to be a contentious issue. Prior to this thread, I wouldn't have guessed that.


Just caught my double negative typo there. Oops. Obviously I support consumer rights!


----------



## fretboard (May 31, 2006)

Not to beat a dead horse here - but I see a few posts above here that I should freely expect to be able to do what I wish with something once I purchase it, correct? 

Can't say as I know Dave Henman (think that's his name on here), and if we're being honest - don't really have the April Wine gene beyond I Like To Rock (nothing personal Dave, I wasn't exposed to any AW as a youngin') - but from what I gather here, he should have no problem with me taking some early April Wine albums, adding some Yoko Ono "harmonies" where I see fit (because in my mind - I'm gonna "improve it", because I've just discovered my Canadian rock and roll sounds better with cat shriekings added to it) and then give it away for free on the internet? I mean him and his representatives (band, mgmt, label) sold some stuff (albums) - which is pretty similar to what RIM does (selling stuff of their invention, or they pay license fees I imagine) - he should be ok with me giving "his stuff" away for free, because I decided his vision at the time he/they recorded/mixed/mastered/pressed/sold them wasn't right for me, and I should be free to take it and "improve it" then give it away for nothing? 

In no way am I implying I have any idea if Dave got paid or still gets paid from anything in the April Wine world (again, my knowledge of AW pretty much starts and ends with ILTR and whichever "slower" tune would have played at high school dances in the 80's) - but the pro-hacking/jailbreaking side of this discussion apparently from what I gather, has no issue (legally, morally, ethically, rock-and-roll-brotherhoodly) of taking stuff he worked on, and just deciding what's best for it and oh well for him if me or everyone here just decides to make it all available to anyone in the world for the cost of an internet connection with nothing back to him and the band/mgmt/label? 

I can sorta grasp the "workin' on my car engine" comparison - but I'm pretty sure my car has a thing I call a "hood" and the owners manual offers suggestions on how to open it, and fill stuff up and replace stuff, etc. so I'm not sure I see the similarities as clearly as other folks. I'd even go so far as to say I'd void any warranty if I didn't open up the hood every now and then and make some changes, like oil, belts, coolant, etc... If the RIM gizmo doesn't do what you want it to - why not just buy the Apple offering or whatever else is available?? 

If I'm barking up the wrong tree here, help a brother out... 

(And Mr. Henman, should you find your name involved in something you didn't sign on for or have any prior knowledge of, I apologize. It was merely to try and make a point for us less techno-speak types.)

On a side note - my 10 year is after either an X-Box or a PS3 - which one would the techie's amongst us buy for their pre-teen? Little too young for the Call of Duty games and online play, etc.


----------



## Shark (Jun 10, 2010)

It's more like downloading an album from iTunes and then burning it to CD to play in your car. And then explaining how others can do it, too. But they still have to buy the mp3s.

(At one point I think that this was in fact illegal, but it's not anymore. Correct me if I'm wrong).


----------



## Shark (Jun 10, 2010)

fretboard said:


> On a side note - my 10 year is after either an X-Box or a PS3 - which one would the techie's amongst us buy for their pre-teen? Little too young for the Call of Duty games and online play, etc.


I sold our XBox for a Wii, so my wife would actually play games with me. XBoxes and Playstations are mostly all about non-family-friendly games. Or at least, the games that our local stores carry for those systems are pretty gruesome.


----------



## Guest (Dec 4, 2011)

fretboard said:


> Not to beat a dead horse here - but I see a few posts above here that I should freely expect to be able to do what I wish with something once I purchase it, correct?
> 
> Can't say as I know Dave Henman (think that's his name on here), and if we're being honest - don't really have the April Wine gene beyond I Like To Rock (nothing personal Dave, I wasn't exposed to any AW as a youngin') - but from what I gather here, he should have no problem with me taking some early April Wine albums, adding some Yoko Ono "harmonies" where I see fit (because in my mind - I'm gonna "improve it", because I've just discovered my Canadian rock and roll sounds better with cat shriekings added to it) and then give it away for free on the internet? I mean him and his representatives (band, mgmt, label) sold some stuff (albums) - which is pretty similar to what RIM does (selling stuff of their invention, or they pay license fees I imagine) - he should be ok with me giving "his stuff" away for free, because I decided his vision at the time he/they recorded/mixed/mastered/pressed/sold them wasn't right for me, and I should be free to take it and "improve it" then give it away for nothing?
> 
> ...


Just because you don't know where "the hood" can be found on your BlackBerry doesn't mean there isn't one. Some of us know where that hood is, how to open it.

As for you April Wine/Yoko Ono parallel: it doesn't work. There are different laws for physical goods and intellectual property. Your BlackBerry is physical property. Once you buy it, have it in hand, no one can stop you from opening the hood. It is your possession to do with as you please.


----------



## keto (May 23, 2006)

Yar, fretboard, sorry that analogy doesn't work for me either. Essentially, the argument is:
-the Playbook/iphone/whatever is a physical device
-it has software loaded on it from the manufacturer
-the manufacturer designed the device and the software to work together...always
-people figure out how to run the device with DIFFERENT, legitimate and freely distributed software, that doesn't use the manufacturer's code - this is where the song analogy sorta falls apart. That process is the jailbreak
-Using your analogy, it's more like you used the tape or vinyl that the AW song used to be on, but no part of the song is in any way on the tape or vinyl any more.
-there are aps for jailbroken devices, that don't use the manufacturer's code, that may be free or may be pay-to-use
-the manufacturer loses revenue stream because the user is not using their software or other aps that work with their software, that they designed to be aftermarket sold to be used with their device.
-the manufacturer doesn't like this and cries 'foul'. Sometimes they claim it may lead to security issues on their devices or network. Universally, they say it voids warranty on the device.


Did I miss anything? I mean, in an overview sorta way, not fine detail.


----------



## 4345567 (Jun 26, 2008)

__________


----------



## fretboard (May 31, 2006)

Think I got it now - thanks for the insight/perspective.


----------



## dodgechargerfan (Mar 22, 2006)

I think that revisiting the definition of "hacker" is in order.

From http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/security/hacker-vs-cracker/1400

"A hacker, in the classic sense of the term, is someone with a strong interest in how things work, who likes to tinker and create and modify things for the enjoyment of doing so. For some, it is a compulsion, while for others it is a means to an end that may lead them to greater understanding of something else entirely. The RFC 1392: Internet Users' Glossary defines

Wow again.. I tried fixing my post and it deleted my last edit as well as the text I was trying to add... (via Tapatalk).
I give.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

all this discussion has made me curious about something. 

what if you loaded all the music you own on an ipod, and then later decided that you dint really like the ipod. then you gave it to your buddy leaving all the music on it, of which he owns none. are you breaking the law? have you done something wrong?


----------



## dodgechargerfan (Mar 22, 2006)

cheezyridr said:


> all this discussion has made me curious about something.
> 
> what if you loaded all the music you own on an ipod, and then later decided that you dint really like the ipod. then you gave it to your buddy leaving all the music on it, of which he owns none. are you breaking the law? have you done something wrong?


Yes.
The iPod is not the issue.
The music on it is. 

One could argue that as long as you don't keep a copy of the songs yourself, then it would be okay.
The problem is tracking all of that and providing proof. It was easier to just make a law against doing it in the first place.

That sounds a little grey because it is. That's why the laws are still being challenged. At least that's what I think...


----------



## jimsz (Apr 17, 2009)

GuitarsCanada said:


> Some background info for those interested.
> 
> 
> The US decision on jailbreaking
> ...


And, there it is in a nutshell.


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

GuitarsCanada said:


> Exactly, so for those that are saying that it does not hurt those companies in any way they are wrong. It is taking money right out of their pockets. Now again, right or wrong, that's anyone's opinion and both have meat to them. But they are in a battle for a ton of cash so make no mistake about that.


Sure I get that, I would like an Iphone simply for the ease of carrying one devise. now I have an iPod I carry everywhere + a phone. but the thing is, I can't just buy the phone to use it that way, no one will sell e one without the accompanying data plan. I don't need or want a data plan on my phone, I just want to use it as a phone and music device. The only way I can do that is to buy a (most likely used) jailbroken phone. Anyway, if I'm wrong educate me, but this is what I have been told by a couple of apple retailers.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

Starbuck said:


> Sure I get that, I would like an Iphone simply for the ease of carrying one devise. now I have an iPod I carry everywhere + a phone. but the thing is, I can't just buy the phone to use it that way, no one will sell e one without the accompanying data plan. I don't need or want a data plan on my phone, I just want to use it as a phone and music device. The only way I can do that is to buy a (most likely used) jailbroken phone. Anyway, if I'm wrong educate me, but this is what I have been told by a couple of apple retailers.


I think you'd only need it to be jail broken if you were going to use it with a different carrier than it was originally locked to. But if you bought a phone locked to for example Bell, and planned to get a plan with Bell, you should have no problem. It's when you use that Bell locked phone and try to put a Rogers sim card in it, that you'd need to get it jail broken.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

If the cyber geeks enable themselves or others to access apps that are for commercial sale, they're A-holes in my opinion.

I prefer to pay for the services and intellectual property I choose to use.

People often rationalize their theft of music and software with one excuse or another.


----------



## gtrguy (Jul 6, 2006)

GONE


----------



## 4345567 (Jun 26, 2008)

__________


----------



## Guest (Dec 6, 2011)

Milkman said:


> If the cyber geeks enable themselves or others to access apps that are for commercial sale, they're A-holes in my opinion.
> 
> I prefer to pay for the services and intellectual property I choose to use.
> 
> People often rationalize their theft of music and software with one excuse or another.


Jailbreaking doesn't get you free access to apps that everyone else pays money for. It lets you run any app you want on the device. Not just apps that RIM approves for the device.


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

Diablo said:


> I think you'd only need it to be jail broken if you were going to use it with a different carrier than it was originally locked to. But if you bought a phone locked to for example Bell, and planned to get a plan with Bell, you should have no problem. It's when you use that Bell locked phone and try to put a Rogers sim card in it, that you'd need to get it jail broken.


oh that I get. But lets say I went to the Source (could be any apple retailer) to buy an iPhone, they are not allowed to sell it to me without the dataplan(I have been told that) . I haven't gone and asked at the apple store, but maybe that is my next stop.


----------



## Guest (Dec 6, 2011)

Starbuck said:


> oh that I get. But lets say I went to the Source (could be any apple retailer) to buy an iPhone, they are not allowed to sell it to me without the dataplan(I have been told that) . I haven't gone and asked at the apple store, but maybe that is my next stop.


So I think there are two concepts being discussed here and confused:

Jailbreaking and unlocking your phone from a carrier network. 

Jailbreaking is the term used to whereby you can circumvent cryptographic signature methods used to ensure only "approved" code is run on a device, allowing you to run any software you like. Jailbreaking really has nothing to do with your carrier and how you contract with them. Only what software you can run on your device.

Unlocking your phone from a carrier network (usually just referred to as "unlocking") is a concept older than all of these smartphones. Carriers can lock phones so that they only work on their networks. In Canada, after a certain period of time (IIRC it's 1 year) you're entitled to request that your carrier unlock your phone so that you could use it on any other network, not just theirs (of course, the wireless protocol used by the other carrier needs to match the protocol supported by your phone for it be used on the alternate network). They can't refuse the request. They can charge a very small fee for the service. Once unlocked, phones become pretty valuable because you can take them all over the world, drop a new SIM in to the phone, and have it join a local carrier network. If you travel to the States quite a bit or Europe this is an AWESOME way to save massive dollars on your cellular bill -- you just buy a pay-as-you-go SIM when you get there, drop it in, have at it with a local phone number on your phone as long as you are there.

Unlocking a phone doesn't mean you'll be able to use it on any other carrier without signing a contract. And that contract may or may not include a data plan. But unlocking your phone does open up some options you didn't have previously. Most notably: the ability to keep your phone and all it's data but shop around carrier. Also: the ability to consider pay-as-you-go plans. There may or may not be PAYG plans in Canada that can work with an iPhone that provide only voice services, no data. That's probably what you want to find if you don't need mobile data services for your iPhone. Though, truthfully, the delta between Bell's 500MB phone + data plan service and their phone-only service is ~$12/month. Not much, and the convenience of mobile data with a smartphone is pretty...convenient. 

That being said: you can buy a fully unlocked iPhone from the Apple Store. Because it's unlocked, and sold with out a carrier contract, you have to pay full price for it. An unlocked iPhone 4S without a contract starts at $649 for the 16GB model. Without the carrier subsidizing it, it's a pretty pricey buy. But that's an iPhone that you can travel around the world with.


----------



## Brennan (Apr 9, 2008)

As far as I know, the provider can not actually force you to subscribe to a data plane when you purchase a phone ... that said, the guys working at the counter have probably been told not to accept no as an answer (their commission comes from the plans, not the hardware). I would suggest just going to a bell/rogers/telus etc.. store and buying the phone with no contract at all (or order one from their online stores), picking up a SIM starter kit and signing up for whatever voice package you want online. Just make sure you call them up afterwards and ask them to hard block data transfer on the account, or you could accidentally run apps that use data and get charged a boatload for it.


----------



## hollowbody (Jan 15, 2008)

Starbuck said:


> oh that I get. But lets say I went to the Source (could be any apple retailer) to buy an iPhone, they are not allowed to sell it to me without the dataplan(I have been told that) . I haven't gone and asked at the apple store, but maybe that is my next stop.


That's not true as far as I know. You can have an iPhone without a data plan and just use it when you are in a wifi hotspot. I know lots of people who have smartphones without data plans. Having said that, a smartphone that only works in certain places is kind of useless.

I actually want the opposite. I want a phone with a data plan but with a pay-as-you go voice plan, which isn't possible.

Actually, the iPod touch with messenger is pretty interesting to me now.


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

iaresee said:


> Jailbreaking doesn't get you free access to apps that everyone else pays money for. It lets you run any app you want on the device. Not just apps that RIM approves for the device.


Only problem is there are a bunch of repositories for cracked iPhone apps one you jailbreak and install cydia. I pay for all my apps. But I have been on a repository where pretty much every app I had was there for free.

Fortunately that is not the main reason most people jailbreak. It's to add functionality. Right now my phone is running ios5 and isn't jailbroken. But I miss lockscreen and Sbs settings. Apple's notification centre is not an adequate substitute.


----------



## Guest (Dec 6, 2011)

torndownunit said:


> Only problem is there are a bunch of repositories for cracked iPhone apps one you jailbreak and install cydia. I pay for all my apps. But I have been on a repository where pretty much every app I had was there for free.


I'll argue you're talking about a very small percentage of users who are after this sort of thing though. Inconsequentially small. Also note that the BlackBerry jailbreak is new enough that a black market for apps isn't available yet. There's still the process of breaking the apps to "sell" them on the black market which is more work on top of the research these guys have already done. 



> Fortunately that is not the main reason most people jailbreak. It's to add functionality. Right now my phone is running ios5 and isn't jailbroken. But I miss lockscreen and Sbs settings. Apple's notification centre is not an adequate substitute.


I agree completely here: the main reason people jailbreak to access additional functionality and apps that the vendor won't ever approve. It's funny how heavily Apple "borrowed" from the jailbroken apps for iOS 5. So much of the new Notifications center stuff came from LockScreen.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

iaresee said:


> So I think there are two concepts being discussed here and confused:Jailbreaking and unlocking your phone from a carrier network. Jailbreaking is the term used to whereby you can circumvent cryptographic signature methods used to ensure only "approved" code is run on a device, allowing you to run any software you like. Jailbreaking really has nothing to do with your carrier and how you contract with them. Only what software you can run on your device.Unlocking your phone from a carrier network (usually just referred to as "unlocking") is a concept older than all of these smartphones. Carriers can lock phones so that they only work on their networks. In Canada, after a certain period of time (IIRC it's 1 year) you're entitled to request that your carrier unlock your phone so that you could use it on any other network, not just theirs (of course, the wireless protocol used by the other carrier needs to match the protocol supported by your phone for it be used on the alternate network). They can't refuse the request. They can charge a very small fee for the service. Once unlocked, phones become pretty valuable because you can take them all over the world, drop a new SIM in to the phone, and have it join a local carrier network. If you travel to the States quite a bit or Europe this is an AWESOME way to save massive dollars on your cellular bill -- you just buy a pay-as-you-go SIM when you get there, drop it in, have at it with a local phone number on your phone as long as you are there.Unlocking a phone doesn't mean you'll be able to use it on any other carrier without signing a contract. And that contract may or may not include a data plan. But unlocking your phone does open up some options you didn't have previously. Most notably: the ability to keep your phone and all it's data but shop around carrier. Also: the ability to consider pay-as-you-go plans. There may or may not be PAYG plans in Canada that can work with an iPhone that provide only voice services, no data. That's probably what you want to find if you don't need mobile data services for your iPhone. Though, truthfully, the delta between Bell's 500MB phone + data plan service and their phone-only service is ~$12/month. Not much, and the convenience of mobile data with a smartphone is pretty...convenient. That being said: you can buy a fully unlocked iPhone from the Apple Store. Because it's unlocked, and sold with out a carrier contract, you have to pay full price for it. An unlocked iPhone 4S without a contract starts at $649 for the 16GB model. Without the carrier subsidizing it, it's a pretty pricey buy. But that's an iPhone that you can travel around the world with.


Well put!For the record, I bought a used iPhone for a side business I was running, had it unlocked and jail broken, and then shopped around carriers and decided for the little use I was going to use the phone (is primarily an iPod for me, but cheaper) I ended up getting a sim card from 7/11 for $50 worth of air time for the year.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

nkjanssen said:


> Wow! Somebody stopped reading after post #1.


And?

I don't always have the time to read pages of debate. My statement stands on its own merit.

If you agree, groovy, if not, well you know what to do.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

iaresee said:


> Jailbreaking doesn't get you free access to apps that everyone else pays money for. It lets you run any app you want on the device. Not just apps that RIM approves for the device.


I see. Thanks for clarifying.


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

iaresee said:


> I'll argue you're talking about a very small percentage of users who are after this sort of thing though. Inconsequentially small. Also note that the BlackBerry jailbreak is new enough that a black market for apps isn't available yet. There's still the process of breaking the apps to "sell" them on the black market which is more work on top of the research these guys have already done.
> 
> 
> I agree completely here: the main reason people jailbreak to access additional functionality and apps that the vendor won't ever approve. It's funny how heavily Apple "borrowed" from the jailbroken apps for iOS 5. So much of the new Notifications center stuff came from LockScreen.


Ya, as my posts said piracy is not the reason most people jailbreak at all. There are some fantastic apps that only cost a few dollars. Most people support them. 

RE iOS 5 features, the fact that they borrowed those features is the only reason I am running iOS 5 unjailbroken. They made some major steps in the right direction. I am shocked they didn't implement something like SBS Settings though considering it's probably the second most popular jailbreak app behind Lockscreen (which their notification centre mimics for those unfamiliar with jailbreaking). 

Unfortunately they made a lot of missteps with that OS as well. I had to tweak the heck out of to get reasonable battery life. I have no idea if the last update solved any of those issues because I still have a bunch of settings shut off that could be potential battery drains.


One other thought. If Jailbreaking was easier, and the steps to add repositories with free apps was easier, do you think more people would abuse it though? Unfortunately I have a feeling people would.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

nkjanssen said:


> And I'm completely against drunk driving.
> 
> But I love pizza.


hey! me too!


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

nkjanssen said:


> Usually people read at least _some_ of the debate they're engaging in before engaging in it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Pizza is pretty fattening.

As usual, you have things confused. I didn't engage in a debate. I made a comment in a guitar forum.

The fact is, that any time you and I exchange comments, you tend to get nasty. That's ok, it's your nature. I don't really take you that seriously.

Have a nice day


----------



## p_wats (Nov 11, 2009)

Did you guys see the articles on the X-box Kinnect? A couple people hacked into it in order to take advantage of the motion sensor technology for other purposes and (eventually) Microsoft embraced and even encouraged people to go further and further with it. It's now considered one of the biggest open-source projects in the world. 

As for Jailbreaking, all I know is that there were apps I wanted to run on my iPhone that Apple didn't want me to have for whatever reason (they like to keep things on a tight leash), in that regard I salute the folks who made it possible for me to play Mario Kart on my phone...ha. Apple still got my money and I get the satisfaction of feeling like I 'customized' my phone.


----------

