6 ms·

No, you still don't own it. The software it runs is still incredibly locked down, leaving you unable to inspect how it works at any reasonable level and unable

by cryptoz 15y ago

No, you still don't own it. The software it runs is still incredibly locked down, leaving you unable to inspect how it works at any reasonable level and unable to legally modify and resell it like you could with anything you actually own.

k-mcgrady 15y ago
Whenever you buy an iOS device you know that it is locked down. I don't understand why people feel the need to complain about this. You do own it, you can do what you want with it. It has just not been designed to make that easy.
- jhuni 15y ago
  Yep, all consumers have perfect knowledge, whenever they purchase something they know exactly what they are getting into. The nearly $500 billion dollars projected to be spent on advertisements by the end of this year has nothing to do with it, nor did any other forms of manipulation.
  - ugh 15y ago
    Have you considered the alternative, namely that people really don’t care about owning (as you define it) their phone?
    - cryptoz 15y ago
      To me, it doesn't really matter whether or not most people care about that in their phone. The definition stands. Nobody but Apple owns iPhones. Maybe no iPhone users care about that, and that's fine. But that doesn't change the fact that they own a license to use it and not the product itself.
      - xsmasher 15y ago
        Would you say the same about your TV, your wristwatch, or your car? If not, why not? They all run software that you don't have the source to, and in some cases can't modify at all (burned into ROMs.)
    - jhuni 15y ago
      People do care which is why there is an entire free software movement that shares my concerns.
      - ugh 15y ago
        Yeah, some people do care but they don’t buy an iPhone. I’m talking about those people who actually do buy one.
  - atonse 15y ago
    As someone who generally loves the idea of tinkering with my phone, I simply can't buy the logic that not being able to, actually hinders the ownership experience. I don't have any interest in "hacking" into my car, dishwasher, or fridge. I want them to _just work_, and I want to know who to call when they break. So then, it is entirely reasonable that most people simply want their electronics to work, rather than to somehow feel that just because they can't tinker and mod their device, their ownership is somehow hindered. Although I do feel that media DRM (movies, music, DVD region codes) can often hinder the ownership experience, I simply don't see how these devices being locked down actually hurt MOST consumers who aren't even interested in such details.
    - cryptoz 15y ago
      There's a trend in this whole thread that I don't understand. After pointing out that the users are licensing the ability to use the proprietary operating system rather than "owning" it, the main rebuttal is: nobody cares, so it doesn't matter. I don't understand that. For example, few people care about taxes, war, or clean energy policies (less than 50% vote in much of North America). Does that mean the work done in these areas doesn't matter? The fact that most people don't care has little to do with the truth of the matter. Only Apple owns iPhones. It doesn't matter that nobody cares about this, they still don't own their phone.
      - ugh 15y ago
        But – so what? That’s the point. So you don’t own the phone. Is that a bad thing? Why? That’s the point of disagreement. I don’t understand what’s so bad about it.
        cryptoz 15y ago
        Ah. I see. I only came in here to correct the statements about ownership. It matters to me that HN is not the kind of place where people think they own their iPhones - after all the news about software patents, free software, mobile platforms, etc, I think it's an important distinction to make on this site. The people here care (obviously, hence this debate) about this issue and I just wanted the definitions to be set right: jailbreaking != ownership. As to why it's good or bad, that's entirely personal preference. For me, I want to own it because I want the option to change it. That's all. Therefore, for me, it's terrible to buy a device I don't own. That should answer your question about why it's bad. Maybe it's not bad for you. Maybe it's good for you to not own the device. That's fine; I'm only here to remind you that you don't own it (after it was erroneously suggested up top that you do own it)
  - jmj4 15y ago
    > The nearly $500 billion dollars projected to be spent on advertisements by the end of this year has nothing to do with it, nor did any other forms of manipulation. Fundamentally, people will not purchase something unless they think (however fleetingly) that it will be of benefit to them. Your right; they might not know exactly what they are getting into. But companies can't lie about it. And in this day and age, the information is usually obtainable without too much work.
    - jhuni 15y ago
      Corporations cannot lie, they can just exaggerate ;)
samatman 15y ago
I would assert that this is no longer true. Thanks to the jailbreak, it is possible in principle to get Android running on the iPhone hardware. In practice, this may not be possible yet, but it has been accomplished before on earlier hardware. Therefore, buying an iPhone is not that different from buying a Mac: You get a computer with a proprietary operating system, which (thanks to DevTeam) can be bypassed and replaced with anything that will run, which will eventually include Android assuming people care enough to make it work (they will). The parent comment, that this is a win consumers shouldn't need to fight for, is one I support wholeheartedly.
- willpower101 15y ago
  http://www.idroidproject.org/wiki/Status http://www.idroidproject.org/wiki/Status bootlace works well on older iphones.
willpower101 15y ago
I honestly think that the bulk of this thread comes from confusing "own" with "pwn". (such in QuickPwn and Pwnage Tool) One means legal possession. The other means domination over something, eg., the locked out libraries cydia gives access to.
ceol 15y ago
What do you mean by "unable to legally modify and resell it"? I believe I can break my phone open, install anything I want, and resell it on eBay or at a flea market. Is your definition of ownership including the software? That's not exactly fair, because you never own software unless you personally write it; any software is installed under a license.
- wnight 15y ago
  > any software is installed under a license Not at all. Software is sold. Until that changes the EULA is irrelevant. Copyright law has specific exemptions for copying a program in memory, etc, for the purposes of executing it. No license has is needed, making the justification for EULAs nonexistent.
- slowpoke 15y ago
  >That's not exactly fair, because you never own software unless you personally write it; any software is installed under a license. Technically this might be true, but Free Software licenses allow you varying degrees of do what the fuck you want, while proprietary licenses grant you a (temporary) right to use the software, and nothing else. With FS, I own the copy I received. With proprietary licenses, I don't.
  - ceol 15y ago
    I was under the impression that the GPL forced you to release any modifications under GPL as well. If this is true, doesn't this mean you _don't_ own it?
    - slowpoke 15y ago
      The GPL is really a very special case. I can understand most and share some of the criticism of it, but the fact is that it tries to keep things fair for everyone by preserving all essential freedoms. It does this by restricting one freedom: your freedom to restrict the freedom of others. I personally would prefer permissive licenses (or really, no licenses at all, but we're not going to arrive at this point any time soon), and actually use them for some stuff. It's just that the GPL is necessary to force change right now.

by cryptoz 15y ago

k-mcgrady 15y ago

Whenever you buy an iOS device you know that it is locked down. I don't understand why people feel the need to complain about this. You do own it, you can do what you want with it. It has just not been designed to make that easy.

jhuni 15y ago
Yep, all consumers have perfect knowledge, whenever they purchase something they know exactly what they are getting into. The nearly $500 billion dollars projected to be spent on advertisements by the end of this year has nothing to do with it, nor did any other forms of manipulation.
- ugh 15y ago
  Have you considered the alternative, namely that people really don’t care about owning (as you define it) their phone?
  - cryptoz 15y ago
    To me, it doesn't really matter whether or not most people care about that in their phone. The definition stands. Nobody but Apple owns iPhones. Maybe no iPhone users care about that, and that's fine. But that doesn't change the fact that they own a license to use it and not the product itself.
    - xsmasher 15y ago
      Would you say the same about your TV, your wristwatch, or your car? If not, why not? They all run software that you don't have the source to, and in some cases can't modify at all (burned into ROMs.)
  - jhuni 15y ago
    People do care which is why there is an entire free software movement that shares my concerns.
    - ugh 15y ago
      Yeah, some people do care but they don’t buy an iPhone. I’m talking about those people who actually do buy one.
- atonse 15y ago
  As someone who generally loves the idea of tinkering with my phone, I simply can't buy the logic that not being able to, actually hinders the ownership experience. I don't have any interest in "hacking" into my car, dishwasher, or fridge. I want them to _just work_, and I want to know who to call when they break. So then, it is entirely reasonable that most people simply want their electronics to work, rather than to somehow feel that just because they can't tinker and mod their device, their ownership is somehow hindered. Although I do feel that media DRM (movies, music, DVD region codes) can often hinder the ownership experience, I simply don't see how these devices being locked down actually hurt MOST consumers who aren't even interested in such details.
  - cryptoz 15y ago
    There's a trend in this whole thread that I don't understand. After pointing out that the users are licensing the ability to use the proprietary operating system rather than "owning" it, the main rebuttal is: nobody cares, so it doesn't matter. I don't understand that. For example, few people care about taxes, war, or clean energy policies (less than 50% vote in much of North America). Does that mean the work done in these areas doesn't matter? The fact that most people don't care has little to do with the truth of the matter. Only Apple owns iPhones. It doesn't matter that nobody cares about this, they still don't own their phone.
    - ugh 15y ago
      But – so what? That’s the point. So you don’t own the phone. Is that a bad thing? Why? That’s the point of disagreement. I don’t understand what’s so bad about it.
      - cryptoz 15y ago
        Ah. I see. I only came in here to correct the statements about ownership. It matters to me that HN is not the kind of place where people think they own their iPhones - after all the news about software patents, free software, mobile platforms, etc, I think it's an important distinction to make on this site. The people here care (obviously, hence this debate) about this issue and I just wanted the definitions to be set right: jailbreaking != ownership. As to why it's good or bad, that's entirely personal preference. For me, I want to own it because I want the option to change it. That's all. Therefore, for me, it's terrible to buy a device I don't own. That should answer your question about why it's bad. Maybe it's not bad for you. Maybe it's good for you to not own the device. That's fine; I'm only here to remind you that you don't own it (after it was erroneously suggested up top that you do own it)
- jmj4 15y ago
  > The nearly $500 billion dollars projected to be spent on advertisements by the end of this year has nothing to do with it, nor did any other forms of manipulation. Fundamentally, people will not purchase something unless they think (however fleetingly) that it will be of benefit to them. Your right; they might not know exactly what they are getting into. But companies can't lie about it. And in this day and age, the information is usually obtainable without too much work.
  - jhuni 15y ago
    Corporations cannot lie, they can just exaggerate ;)

samatman 15y ago

I would assert that this is no longer true. Thanks to the jailbreak, it is possible in principle to get Android running on the iPhone hardware. In practice, this may not be possible yet, but it has been accomplished before on earlier hardware. Therefore, buying an iPhone is not that different from buying a Mac: You get a computer with a proprietary operating system, which (thanks to DevTeam) can be bypassed and replaced with anything that will run, which will eventually include Android assuming people care enough to make it work (they will). The parent comment, that this is a win consumers shouldn't need to fight for, is one I support wholeheartedly.

willpower101 15y ago
http://www.idroidproject.org/wiki/Status http://www.idroidproject.org/wiki/Status bootlace works well on older iphones.

willpower101 15y ago

I honestly think that the bulk of this thread comes from confusing "own" with "pwn". (such in QuickPwn and Pwnage Tool) One means legal possession. The other means domination over something, eg., the locked out libraries cydia gives access to.

ceol 15y ago

What do you mean by "unable to legally modify and resell it"? I believe I can break my phone open, install anything I want, and resell it on eBay or at a flea market. Is your definition of ownership including the software? That's not exactly fair, because you never own software unless you personally write it; any software is installed under a license.

wnight 15y ago
> any software is installed under a license Not at all. Software is sold. Until that changes the EULA is irrelevant. Copyright law has specific exemptions for copying a program in memory, etc, for the purposes of executing it. No license has is needed, making the justification for EULAs nonexistent.
slowpoke 15y ago
>That's not exactly fair, because you never own software unless you personally write it; any software is installed under a license. Technically this might be true, but Free Software licenses allow you varying degrees of do what the fuck you want, while proprietary licenses grant you a (temporary) right to use the software, and nothing else. With FS, I own the copy I received. With proprietary licenses, I don't.
- ceol 15y ago
  I was under the impression that the GPL forced you to release any modifications under GPL as well. If this is true, doesn't this mean you _don't_ own it?
  - slowpoke 15y ago
    The GPL is really a very special case. I can understand most and share some of the criticism of it, but the fact is that it tries to keep things fair for everyone by preserving all essential freedoms. It does this by restricting one freedom: your freedom to restrict the freedom of others. I personally would prefer permissive licenses (or really, no licenses at all, but we're not going to arrive at this point any time soon), and actually use them for some stuff. It's just that the GPL is necessary to force change right now.