Who is right

The kid hacker or Jobs



Which also means you need to "jailbreak the phone"

IMO
Smart kid but wrong on both scenarios

I agree with the kid on this one. I don't want anyone else telling me how to use something I spent that much money on.

Yes, the kid is right that Apple shouldn't have the right to tell him what he can and cannot put on his iPhone ...

Yes, Steve is right that Apple shouldn't have to worry about supporting anything someone puts on their iPhone as a result, or worry about breaking it with updates ...

I think the main argument here is that Apple shouldn't bear responsibility for software it has no control over ...

Yup.. you broke it, you own it
Too often Haxies doan play well with others
Attempting to do so should void the warrantee.

"Yup.. you broke it, you own it"

A fallacy - no such law. at least not here in Ontario, Canada; despite all the signs in shops.

Your correct

However to jail break the phone is wrong no matter how right you think you are

I don't think Apples bears any responsibility for software it has no control over but whose to say what broke the phone ? I guess it is better to just fix the problem instead questioning your customers .

To jailbreak a phone is the right of an individual purchaser. To expect a software provider, in this case Apple, to provide software/OS updates that provide for or work well with "unauthorized" alterations to the system is unrealistic.

Imagine buying a new automobile, from any manufacturer, and altering it for any purpose other than that which the manufacturer intended, and then expecting a dealer to cover under warranty an engine or transmission failure.

So - go ahead - freely alter your owned property, but understand fully all the paperwork that came with it. Steve can't have you arrested for cracking it, but he sure doesn't have to fix it for free either.

The voice of reason. Save the drama for your momma and live with the consequences of your actions - that's pretty much the end-all deal with jailbreaking.

It sucks that we're stuck with AT&T. It sucks that iTunes is the only way to get apps onto an iPhone/iPod Touch. But if you don't like those rules, nobody is forced into buying them. It sucks that we're stuck with that reality, but it is what it is.

Sorry it's NO
You broke a agreement between seller and buyer , thats it end and simple



Certainly Yes
But how many people try and say that Apple broke their jail break Like with autos they remove their jail break and replace with original and take it back in under warranty .

The whole reason Apple does this or ANY company for that matter is to protect buyers from themselves and their products as well . To say the buyer has a "right" to do so is ludicrous but as you mention they can do it "at their own risk" STill who can tell if they jail broke and restored to file for warranty reasons ??

Right JD
Thats the only way Apple can control the apps . Already there was them porn apps and shake the baby shiit . ghees what else breaks in ? If it was wide open all over the net what apps would be breaking the phone ? ? Who pays for it Apple Quality .

I agree about At&T - Apple should make the phone available on any GSM net work subsidized or not

Sorry it's NO
You broke a agreement between seller and buyer , thats it end and simple

Just because it's in writing doesn't make it right, or legally binding, even if you agree to it at the time of initial purchase from AT&T, or Apple. You can also buy a working iPhone second-hand, and have no direct agreement with either corporation. There are plenty of laws that are actually good for the people, that protect the consumer from unfair or unjust corporate practices. Jail-breaking is neither criminal, nor an offense. It merely invalidates an agreement to behave in a certain manner on the part of the purchaser in exchange for an expectation of a certain level of technical support on the part of the vendor. Acting outside of that agreement by the purchaser relieves the vendor of his obligation. The Vendor is liable to certain consequences in the event that he fails to honor his agreement to provide certain services. He agrees to be bound by the agreement in exchange for expected profits in the sale of the device.

I think the agreement is that you void your warranty (or something) if you jailbreak it, and therefore Apple is not liable for the consequences ... I don't think there's actual language forbidding the purchaser from doing whatever they want with the phone after purchase -- it's their property after all ...



Why is it ludicrous? Anybody has the right to do anything they want with their own property (as long as it doesn't violate the law, and jailbreaking isn't illegal) ...



I remember one iPhone update that totally bricked jailbroken units -- not sure if they were able to restore to factory settings if they couldn't even operate the device ... but I could be a-membering wrong ;-)

"STill who can tell if they jail broke and restored to file for warranty reasons ??"

So what?

If a case involving faulty displays, for example, came before me, and Apple claimed hardship owing to a class of customer software abuses, I would want proof (burden: Apple) that a software manipulation cause a hardware failure. In the event that a purchaser had purchased a phone, jail-broke it, subsequently suffered a display failure, and was yet able to restore the entire software package to it's original state, even if only "for warranty reasons," i would, in the absence of the manufacturer's proof of the software manipulation causing the failure, find on behalf of the consumer.