5 ms·

I wonder if this means the activities of the "iPhone Dev Team" are now truly legal? (Not that I know whether they were before) If so, the Google Voice angle gi

I wonder if this means the activities of the "iPhone Dev Team" are now truly legal? (Not that I know whether they were before) If so, the Google Voice angle gives me a horrible idea: imagine if Google snatched up those iPhone jailbreak devs. Google could distribute a jailbreak program to get a true Google Voice app on the iPhone. The downside being that their war with Apple would immediately go nuclear.

bruceboughton 16y ago
Why would Google do this?
- Samuel_Michon 16y ago
  That would depend on its business model. If Google Voice exists solely for the purpose of being a killer app, to differentiate Android phones from the rest of the pack, then there would be no reason to create a client for iOS. If however, the service itself is supposed to bring in revenue of its own, then I'd assume Google would try to make it available for every possible handset out there. As Google has already made a Google Voice app for the iPhone, I'd say their business model is closer to the second scenario. However, given that the percentage of jailbroken iPhones is quite low, I doubt that they'll bother.
btilly 16y ago
The first problem is that while jailbreaking is now legal, it is also legal for Apple to push a change that happens to break jailbroken phones. Apple doing this could create liability and/or negative publicity for any company that had sold such services on a wide scale. The second problem is that lawyers will be trying to find a way to create the old result, and are likely to succeed. For instance Apple's restrictions against jailbreaking are almost certainly in their shrinkwrap license contract. Therefore the fact that they can't throw the copyright book at you, doesn't mean that you're necessarily legally in the clear to do it.
- jacquesm 16y ago
  I think that the company that this would create liability and/or negative publicity for would be apple.
  - btilly 16y ago
    Apple has proven willing to brick jailbroken phones in the past. They didn't suffer any liability, and didn't get very much negative publicity. And it did wonders for maintaining the wall around the walled garden they are trying to create with the app store. Given this, I see nothing to suggest that they won't do it again. And any company who suggests otherwise is taking a definite risk.
    - ben1040 16y ago
      Apple has proven willing to brick jailbroken phones in the past. Have they? The famous case of "bricking" back in 2007 was not related to a jailbreak, but was a botched unlock tool[1] that corrupted data in the baseband firmware. The corruption then led to problems with an update. Apple issued a warning when the update was released saying it would affect unlocked phones, and I can't imagine this is out of malice so much as it is out of Apple's pre-release testing activities revealing problems. If it were an intentional attack against people who had jailbroken phones, why did it only affect those who used that particular flavor of unlock software? With a jailbreak being simply a software modification, when has strictly a jailbreak (not an unlock) led to a bricked phone? At worst, a software update from Apple will just lead to the phone being restored back to non-jailbroken state. http://code.google.com/p/iphone-elite/wiki/iPhoneBrick http://code.google.com/p/iphone-elite/wiki/iPhoneBrick
- kragen 16y ago
  it is also legal for Apple to push a change that happens to break jailbroken phones Are you sure? That sounds like trespass to chattels to me, or if they hadn't tested their update on jailbroken phones, then reckless, possibly criminal negligence.
dman 16y ago
It would in practice be similar to the itunes compatibility that Palm tried. It was technically cool, but in the end the cat and mouse game with apple would mean few mainstream users would actually bother and it would make little business sense.

bruceboughton 16y ago

Why would Google do this?

Samuel_Michon 16y ago
That would depend on its business model. If Google Voice exists solely for the purpose of being a killer app, to differentiate Android phones from the rest of the pack, then there would be no reason to create a client for iOS. If however, the service itself is supposed to bring in revenue of its own, then I'd assume Google would try to make it available for every possible handset out there. As Google has already made a Google Voice app for the iPhone, I'd say their business model is closer to the second scenario. However, given that the percentage of jailbroken iPhones is quite low, I doubt that they'll bother.

btilly 16y ago

The first problem is that while jailbreaking is now legal, it is also legal for Apple to push a change that happens to break jailbroken phones. Apple doing this could create liability and/or negative publicity for any company that had sold such services on a wide scale. The second problem is that lawyers will be trying to find a way to create the old result, and are likely to succeed. For instance Apple's restrictions against jailbreaking are almost certainly in their shrinkwrap license contract. Therefore the fact that they can't throw the copyright book at you, doesn't mean that you're necessarily legally in the clear to do it.

jacquesm 16y ago
I think that the company that this would create liability and/or negative publicity for would be apple.
- btilly 16y ago
  Apple has proven willing to brick jailbroken phones in the past. They didn't suffer any liability, and didn't get very much negative publicity. And it did wonders for maintaining the wall around the walled garden they are trying to create with the app store. Given this, I see nothing to suggest that they won't do it again. And any company who suggests otherwise is taking a definite risk.
  - ben1040 16y ago
    Apple has proven willing to brick jailbroken phones in the past. Have they? The famous case of "bricking" back in 2007 was not related to a jailbreak, but was a botched unlock tool[1] that corrupted data in the baseband firmware. The corruption then led to problems with an update. Apple issued a warning when the update was released saying it would affect unlocked phones, and I can't imagine this is out of malice so much as it is out of Apple's pre-release testing activities revealing problems. If it were an intentional attack against people who had jailbroken phones, why did it only affect those who used that particular flavor of unlock software? With a jailbreak being simply a software modification, when has strictly a jailbreak (not an unlock) led to a bricked phone? At worst, a software update from Apple will just lead to the phone being restored back to non-jailbroken state. http://code.google.com/p/iphone-elite/wiki/iPhoneBrick http://code.google.com/p/iphone-elite/wiki/iPhoneBrick
kragen 16y ago
it is also legal for Apple to push a change that happens to break jailbroken phones Are you sure? That sounds like trespass to chattels to me, or if they hadn't tested their update on jailbroken phones, then reckless, possibly criminal negligence.

dman 16y ago

It would in practice be similar to the itunes compatibility that Palm tried. It was technically cool, but in the end the cat and mouse game with apple would mean few mainstream users would actually bother and it would make little business sense.