How much effort does Apple put into securing the devices nowadays? The hackers seem to be getting quicker and quicker with each release, it's as if Apple isn't even trying anymore!
Hm, I thought it was the opposite. They used to have hacks out before the phones and iOS versions were released. Apple keeps closing the doors on every new hack, so hackers are publishing fewer hacks and actually taking turns publicizing exploits so that Apple can only close one at a time.
Looks like the opposite to me. First time I saw an iPhone jailbreak, it was just a matter of visiting a certain web site and tapping a button. (This was, of course, an obvious remote root vulnerability that definitely needed to be patched.) This came back briefly a year ago, but didn't last long. Devices were generally jailbroken quickly and easily, but it's been getting harder. The iPad 2 still doesn't have a usable jailbreak despite having been available for half a year now. iOS 5 only has a tethered jailbreak (i.e. you must connect it to a computer when rebooting the device) and even that is only on certain devices, even though betas have been available since the summer. In fact, even iOS 4.3.4 and 4.3.5 don't have untethered jailbreaks.
To me, it looks like Apple is actively locking down the platform in a big way and trying pretty hard to shut down jailbreaking entirely. Given how long it's been on the iPad 2, I fear that they're succeeding, too.
You've paid your 500 bucks. They lock it down so that the 99.999% of people who have no interest in jailbreaking don't screw themselves up and don't get infected by viruses. If a fringe minority decides to jailbreak that, that's not a problem for Apple so long as it remains a fringe minority.
If that is the logic, why make jailbreaking difficult at all? Say Apple took the Android model of hiding installing apps from unknown sources in settings and warning users about the dangers, but didn't take the Android model of allowing almost any app in the store. The review process would still weed out the viruses for the 99.999%, and the .001% can be happy and not have to make security holes public just so they can install any app they like.
The problem with that (from Apple's perspective) is that the number of users who are going to somehow get tricked into toggling the 'allow from unknown sources' switch and get their phones messed with is almost certainly larger than the number of people who would legitimately be happy from having the capability.
So you make it a hardware switch. "To jailbreak your iDevice, open up the case with this special screwdriver, and short jumper X." No person is going to accidentally be tricked into doing that by a popup window, but it's easy enough for people that actually care.
(Even Google's Chromebook strategy is good; a hardware switch.)
1) They make hardly any money from their 30 percent.
2) Why is it obvious that everybody would suddenly switch to not selling through the App Store?
I don’t think alternate app stores on Android are terribly successful. Maybe they are, I don’t know, but I haven’t heard about it. People stick to the defaults and what’s convenient and easily discoverable.
Such a switch would be relevant for very few people. There is no reason Apple couldn’t do it. It just wouldn’t be good or bad for them. They can be lazy.
Here is the relevant quote from Apple’s CFO Peter Oppenheimer, made during one of Apple’s quarterly conference calls: “Regarding the App Store and the iTunes stores, we are running those a bit over break even and that hasn’t changed.”
This is by now an old quote (from January 2010 – how time runs) so things might have changed. There just isn’t any more current information. Nevertheless, if you look at Apple’s numbers it’s pretty obvious that they make the vast majority of their money by selling hardware. Music, videos and apps make the hardware more attractive, not a lot of money for Apple.
> If that is the logic, why make jailbreaking difficult at all?
Apple pays support costs (facilities, labor, etc.) for everyone who brings in an iOS device to a store, and it's their best interest to allow their personnel to turn problems around quickly. If an in-warranty device is "broken," they can send the customer home with a refurb one within fifteen minutes (I've done this for a screen). An easy jailbreak means more devices will come in broken, they'll have to keep more replacements in stock, and they won't necessarily be able to turn customers away for it because there might not be a good way to detect a jailbreak.
Jailbreaking is also a security problem for enterprises. If a user can run arbitrary un-sandboxed code, there's no way the device's owner can trust it to receive sensitive emails, be wiped remotely, and so on.
It is pretty clear that if Apple were to enable unknown sources (my comment was more of an unlikely hypothetical intended to point out that Apple isn't really that jailbreak friendly), it would void all warranties and be very detectable. Also, just like Android, it could easily be turned off in enterprise settings.
You can enable unknown sources: just buy a developer key for $100. It still doesn't allow you to mess with the lower-level system stuff that's the big appeal for jailbreaking.
Jailbreaking is more like rooting an Android than the unknown sources checkbox.
Apple is definitely actively trying to prevent jailbreaking. The first jailbreak involved hijacking iTunes restore mode commands. They completely redid the protocol to try to thwart this.
It's a violation of the DMCA to break DRM. Actually, I think it is technically in violation of the DMCA, but the Library of Congress recently gave a 3-year exception to jailbreaking phones. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/07/apple-loses-...
Be careful with that. The exemptions do not absolve you from the "trafficking" provisions of the DMCA according to the Library of Congress. So you're allowed to do it, but not to "traffic" in the necessary tools (or software) to actually make it happen.
Yes, that is really, really stupid. Don't just take my word for it:
Perhaps you are making reference to some papers they filed with the U.S. Copyright Office that noted that modified copies of Apple software are used in the process of jail-breaking. The claim was that the process was copyright infringement.
Note that this is different from saying that it is criminal. Under U.S. copyright law, not every infringement is criminal. In fact, criminal infringements are the exception, not the rule.
So, as far as I know, they did not claim what you say they claim. Unless you have a good citation to the contrary, that is.
