Home >
If perhaps yesterday you took a break from twitter, blogs, or talking to anyone who didn't take a similar break, then you may have missed the news that the U.S. Copyright office passed down new rules under the DMCA changing what is and isn't legal. A few of the changes specifically relate to mobile phone development. Specifically, it is now legal for software to enable your phone to work on another carrier (i.e. "unlock" it, as in unlocking an iPhone to work on T-Mobile.) It is also legal to jailbreak your phone - to enable it to run applications not downloaded through Apple's app store, for instance.
This is all good and nice, but is it going to result in any real change in the mobile phone market? Other than bricking the original iPhone with an early iOS update, I'm not aware of any instance where Apple went after customers who'd unlocked or jailbroken their phones (and 'went after' is probably overly harsh - Apple gave advanced warning.) While the new rules might at least incent Apple to play nice and not brick legally jail-broken phones, will consumers benefit in any way?
It doesn't seem likely. It seems to me that consumers benefit when there's a way to get apps onto the iPhone that doesn't go through Apple - when applications can be distributed through other means, legally sold, and easily installed on the phone...you know, like normal software. Despite the new DMCA interpretation, Apple still retains the ability to make jailbreaking a pain the butt, and can keep configuring new versions of it's operating system to thwart previous jailbroken versions simply by refusing to support jailbreaking. The app store easily retains its position as the dominant portal for installing apps on the phone, and jailbreaking remains a fringe thing for hobbyists.
To really change things on the iPhone would require a stable, consistent marketplace for jailbroken apps and a stable, consistent, and easy to install version of the jailbreaking software. When I say things like "easy", "stable" and "consistent" I'm talking about taking those adjectives to Apple-like extents. Jailbreaking won't take off until it's easy enough for non-computer people to do easily, and until there's a brand behind it that non-computer people, wary about breaking their expensive smart phone, will trust.
Were this to happen, it's not clear that Apple would actually suffer. Sure they'd lose some app revenue, but they'd also sell more phones as the value of the platform increased. They'd retain their curated garden of carefully reviewed applications in their own app store while allowing innovation to occur on the wild-west of the open platform.
But don't bet on it happening any time soon. Apple's attitude has been consistently against opening the platform or allowing any kind of open innovation to occur that doesn't pass through their gates. And that's fine - it's their product, they made it, and it seems to be doing well so far. Compounding Apple's attitude is the inability of any open-alliance to create the sort of "clean" jailbreaking platform required to get this to the mass market. Open communities are historically bad at getting out of the fringe and going mainstream as being "fringe" is a part of their cultural identity, and Apple will continue playing up the stability and security risks inherent to "hacking" their OS. At the same time, Google is doing their best to court mobile developers interested in innovation to the vast and open Android platform, further depleting the number of designers and developers interested in spending their energy working around whatever roadblocks Apple might legally put up against jailbreaking.
While the U.S. Copyright news is good for the spirit of innovation and the principle of personal property, don't count on seeing much come of it.
Further reading:
Tech Crunch's article summarizing changes to the DMCA interpretation
Wikipedia on jailbreaking
Tag Cloud
Podcasts & Screencasts
@InsideRIA on Twitter
Follow InsideRIA on Twitter
Facebook Application Development
I think this is a sad day for businesses who are affected by this (not just Apple), this also extends to the Gaming Industry and the Software Industry regarding Dongle security devices. This ruling also has the potential to have competitors like Verizon, T-Mobile, etc.. write and maintain applications to help the "jailbreaking" process so that iPhones can be used on their networks, not just AT&T. This new ruling makes that LEGAL -- and you think there is not a "crap load" of money associated with that capability to circumvent the relationship with AT&T? (tons). OR any other company that wanted their stuff to be included on the iPhone/iPad or whatever that was not possible before this ruling? (I can think of one or two that are pissed off enough to consider helping that process of jailbreaking to get around Apple's exclusions). This could run very far and wide!
Regarding Apple specifically, it is VERY important to remember that this is THEIR "eco-system" - users have choice to NOT purchase Apple Products and Services (or the services of their exclusive partners like AT&T). They have many options and many variations on the same technology to demonstrate how Apple is missing the mark and encourage people to move to another platform via 'killer apps'. I love my iPhone, and HATE the AT&T network with a passion. I miss Verizon deeply, but have accepted the trade-off for the ability to use Apple's products. AT&T just does not get it relative to how to take care of customers and address what customers want - they are making things such that if you want to do what others are currently doing, but with your iPhone, you must PAY dearly in some cases to get there (yea this pisses off EVERY iPhone/AT&T customer as we are being nickel and dimed throughout the entire relationship).
The ruling is a much more negative thing than anyone realizes. It is basically legalizing your ability to break the contractual agreement you agreed to with ANY software/hardware company under an initial list of circumstances. It is a VERY SLIPPERY SLOPE - and once you start giving exceptions for breaking the agreements to a few areas, the rest can not be far behind.
This effectively kills the business model if it starts to become a problem (e.g. other companies develop and maintain jail-breaking apps to enable customers to move away from carriers and providers to their own, or to infuse technologies that Apple does not want on their devices for whatever technical/political/personal reasons.)
I expect Apple to change their core application module to require a completely authenticated distribution model (make it very very very very very hard to jailbreak the iOS or load any apps within it that are not authenticated and licensed properly directly from Apple). That is what I would do if I was them.
@RJ.
The latest Jailbreak is Apple easy. 1 app, no restores or anything crazy. Run it, done. Of course that's until Apple patches that hole.
The Cydia store, is ridiculously stable. It's packed with free and pay apps/games. The payment process is easy (supporting paypal and amazon). So I'd argue if that was your metric, it's done.
"Fringe thing for hobbyists" I remember when that applied to the mac :)
It's easy to compare grassroots efforts like jailbreaking and Cydia store, to established built in options, and use that as evidence.
At the end of the day I agree with ya. This ruling is more towards the spirit of an open community than actually changing anything. I don't see Apple going, "Oh, ok sure." and opening the doors to the kingdom, and that's cool. I'm ok being on the fringe. Too bad Apple (and others, this is bigger than Apple) can't let healthy ecosystems thrive that aren't their own.
@Dave, totally don't agree with you. Not even a little. Sure in a completely protectionist, anti consumer rights way, this is a bad idea. Which to me means it's an awesome idea.
Take for example, i buy my iPhone outright, no ATT contract, shouldn't I be able to take that phone where I please? This ruling allows that.
Maybe I bought my Droid X outright, and want to (God knows why) put it on ATT. Shouldn't I be able to do that? Sure there's east examples of the evils of buying subsidized phones and taking them to Tmo. Don't forget, doing that incurs the ETF, so ATT still isn't losing out. No one is.
Slippery slopes are where innovation is born.
To your last paragraph I'll quote star wars. The tighter you close your grip the more systems slip right past.
@John - Totally missing the point.
This type of government intrusion into business KILLS the innovation of that company. WHY would anyone put time and money into something that the government allows your users to "legally" break their end-user license agreement (EULA)?
Would you put time into developing a super cool application that you spend a year developing (nights, weekends and no pay) only to have your application fall into a narrow ruling that allowed your customers to NOT pay you for your effort? NOPE! (no one is that stupid - it is an OpenSource project at that point).
This kills the incentive of business to innovate their OWN platform and eco-system.
Eco-Systems like Apple do not appear unless they can pay for it and make money. This type of legal process will do nothing but slow that entire process down....
The last % of jailbroken devices I saw was 10%. Is that fringe?
@Dave
Disagree. It's absolutely great that the government will not get involved when a user hacks their own property. If you want to rent devices from Apple, that come with a non-hack policy, I encourage you to convince Apple to start leasing phones instead of selling them. Jailbreaking your phone doesn't lead to stealing apps, in fact I bought more apps after jailbreaking, thanks to the Cydia store. Then I bought an Android phone and happy ever after.
@David
"...fall into a narrow ruling that allowed your customers to NOT pay you for your effort?"
In what way is this enabling people to not pay Apple for their effort? Or any other developer? Apple gets paid when you buy a phone. That's the only time they are guaranteed money, you could opt to never buy something from the App Store and they wouldn't make another cent. But they don't care, they're not giving you the phone for free.
Similarly with AT&T, even if you jailbreak/unlock and take this phone to another carrier, AT&T still gets paid. Either you pay for 2 years of their service or you pay an early termination fee.
I fail to see how this declaration kills anything. Remember, without "government intrusion into business", copyrights would be near meaningless and nigh enforceable.
Mobile devices are viewed by developers and companies are simply another channel through which to sell their goods.
The Android channel is totally open, anyone can sell anything to anyone by any means through it.
The iDevice channel is totally closed. A select group can sell select items to anyone by a single means. The select and single elements are all directed through Apple.
This ruling shifts the iDevice channel towards the Android channel, that's it. It's allowing a wider range of products from a wider group sold by a wider set of means.
The only thing this hurts is anti-competitive tendencies.
Lets put it another way... this might actually save Apple an anti-competitive lawsuit as they can point to this ruling and say, "Hey, users can jailbreak and do what they want!"
I think David Bigelow protests a tad too much. This ruling will barely affect Apple in any way. If I buy iPhone outright, Apple gets money and I do what I want. If I buy iPhone subsidized, Apple gets money; if I jailbreak alone nothing changes, if I unlock as well then AT&T still gets something from me either in continuing payment of a service I'm no longer using or I pay the early termination fee. I don't see how the companies involved lose out. Plus that rant about stealing from the companies, especially the part about stealing apps, is beyond any sense of reality. Most EULA's are overly restrictive and are hugely anti-consumer in nature to the point they should be looked at by a court. But this one ruling is not going to destroy companies as we know it.
By the way, if Verizon spends any amount of money on getting people to jailbreak or unlock their iPhone then they are chasing fool's gold as the iPhone will not work on the Verizon network. Only T-Mobile would benefit and I don't see them going all out to destroy AT&T over one phone.
This ruling does not allow you to "break" your contractual obligations and I don't understand how anyone could interpret such a thing. If you sign a contract involving payment then you have to pay according to that contract regardless of what you do with the phone you received because of that contract. I don't think David understands what this ruling actually means. This type of activity has already been in play in many countries and the companies involved seem to be doing just fine in those markets.
Personally I believe that if Apple goes out of their way to make it difficult to jailbreak the iPhone then they are going against the essence of this ruling. If people have the right to jailbreak their phones then Apple does not have the right to prevent it. But of course this will probably involve another court case. I could see that Apple could prevent you from getting updates or apps from iTunes though. I just don't see Apple being able to actively create roadblocks to prevent jailbreaking within the OS itself when you buy the phone.
I see this ruling as having the largest impact on the secondary market. All those people with old iPhones can sell them to people who may want to use them how they please without Apple being able to get in their way.
@Dave,
I see it like this. It doesn't stifle or kill innovation, it frees it. It's sorta like this post talks about http://sivers.org/multiply
It's not the idea, it's the implementation. If the idea is so easily copiable, that it requires law to protect... well that's the problem.
I'd love to see an example of an application that would fall victim to this ruling in the way you worry about.
I think you misunderstand most business (IMO) motivation. This type of ruling encourages, forces really. This business that you're worried about to innovate and stay ahead of the game, which is good for the consumer.
It's like all other things, evolution, and survival of the fittest. It's why we don't ride horses still, and why my music is not taking up a wall in my house on magnetic tape.