Printable View
I wouldn't bet the kids' education on that assertion. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by pallentx
The ipad is not like the fiber switch you mentioned, since that product was sold with in-the-field upgrades available for a fee. It is just less expensive for the manufacture to include the hardware functionality, that you explicitly didn't pay for, right from the get-go rather than having to physically modifiy the product in the field.
Michael
yeah, I dont really know the details of law regarding this stuff. It just seems that if a switch manufacturer can tell me I cant plug something in without paying first, a phone manufacturer can say I cant tether my phone to a laptop (thus using a LOT more data) without paying more. I would expect them to not be happy with me finding ways around that.Quote:
Originally Posted by TinmanI wouldn't bet the kids' education on that assertion. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by pallentx
The ipad is not like the fiber switch you mentioned, since that product was sold with in-the-field upgrades available for a fee. It is just less expensive for the manufacture to include the hardware functionality, that you explicitly didn't pay for, right from the get-go rather than having to physically modifiy the product in the field.
Michael
Well that is a bit different than saying you can't jailbreak. As for tethering I would say that AT&T wouldn't like not getting the extra money... for sure. But I don't put tethering in the same camp as cracked apps.Quote:
Originally Posted by pallentxyeah, I dont really know the details of law regarding this stuff. It just seems that if a switch manufacturer can tell me I cant plug something in without paying first, a phone manufacturer can say I cant tether my phone to a laptop (thus using a LOT more data) without paying more. I would expect them to not be happy with me finding ways around that.Quote:
Originally Posted by TinmanI wouldn't bet the kids' education on that assertion. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by pallentx
The ipad is not like the fiber switch you mentioned, since that product was sold with in-the-field upgrades available for a fee. It is just less expensive for the manufacture to include the hardware functionality, that you explicitly didn't pay for, right from the get-go rather than having to physically modifiy the product in the field.
Michael
I am also sure AT&T would rather you stay on a contract and only use them for the iPhone too. Yet the DMCA, draconian enough as it is, has specifically been updated to ensure mobile phone unlocking is indeed legal.
Now as a disclaimer I do have my iPhone 4 jailbroken and I did buy MyWi to feed 3G to my iPad (rarely need to though, but it is nice to have when/if needed). I am on the $25 per month 2GB data plan. I pay for 2GB per month and I honestly think AT&T would be screwing me to charge me $20 per month and not give me one single byte extra of data. Heck I think they are screwing us by touting rollover minutes yet no rollover data. :)
As it is I use less than a quarter of that 2GB and if I wasn't using it with my iPad I'd be using it on my iPhone. iPad just makes it nicer (though my iPad is usually used at home... it's on WiFi 95%+ of the time).
Michael
I am not against jailbreaking for sure. I plan to jailbreak my ipad when 4.0 comes out. I just find it interesting how much more complicated and irritating licensing is in the corporate IT world. Cell phone consumers would never tolerate that kind of thing in the consumer world. A lot of software companies charge you by how many cores your CPUs have. Its exactly the same software, you just pay more if you have a dual core or 4 quad core CPUs running it.
Well I would already have my iPad jailbroken but I took too long to buy one. Mine came with 3.2.2 already installed. It's soooooo hard not having some of my most needed jailbreak apps on my iPad. Heck, above and beyond that I just miss 4.x on it! For the love of God no task switcher is killing me.
Michael
Theft of services? That's totally wrong! People pay for a service and it's insane to think that Apple or AT&T or whoever can tell them how they are supposed to use the data service they pay for. It's ten times more insane to believe that this is theft!Quote:
Originally Posted by gilroykilroy
At best its interference with a corporate business model.
And as any market strategist worth his salt will tell you, business models that depend on restricting customer behaviour and usage are swiftly doomed to failure. If you want to make money you need to offer some value. If the customer finds ways of extracting extra value from your service, maybe you should consider charging more for it. Trying to stop the customer doing it is a quick ticket to nowhere. I worked in telecom strategy for many years and saw this a lot!
On which planet? Even in China, if you own the device you can do whatever you want to it. You can hack it, take it apart, burn it, reverse engineer it... What you can't do, is do some of those things commercially like, reverse engineer the A4 SOC and sell clones of it. If you reverse engineer for the fun of it only it IS legal.Quote:
Originally Posted by pallentx
1) Corporate IT is governed by corporate contracts which are custom and completely different (and differently regulated) than retail sales contracts.Quote:
Originally Posted by pallentx
2)Even so the particulars of each contract can only restrict you so much. E.g. if you own this switch and there is an alternative way to activate the switch without violating the IP of the vendor that could be legal (depends on contract terms). Its just that you are very unlikely to find a way to do that.
In the case of a retail purchase and if no violation of apple's IP has occurred, there is nothing illegal inappropriate or immoral about you jailbreaking your device. Even if a breach of IP occurred, the guilty party is the one who reverse engineered the code, not the one who used it.
Corporations are trying to re-write the laws by re-educating consumers to accept a lot of unacceptable &#~! It's better to learn to protect our rights!
The way I see it is this. I BOUGHT it. It is MINE and no longer Apples.
So....I will do as I please with it and if Apple does not like it then they can shove it where the sun does not shine.
:D
Exactly....now a phone on subsidy is a little different.Quote:
Originally Posted by Digikid
You don't actually own your iPhone for about 6 months....AT&T does and has a right to disable it or require it returned at any time in that period that you are reimbursing them on the subsidy.
***? How about a citation for that?Quote:
Originally Posted by gentlefury
My contract says AT&T's recourse is ETF, not any kind of "repossession." I didn't buy the iPhone with a secured loan.
The only thing I have heard is if you cancel within 30 days, but that is because you don't pay the ETF, only restocking fee.
Michael
I agree. I mean if you sell a product from your store to a customer, would you really care what they did to it? If they void the warranty by altering the product, that's really their own business.Quote:
Originally Posted by DroidUser84