There’s two things here Apple is claiming is now an undue burden. You address the first one, actually creating the tool. The second one is that Apple would incur an undue burden by having to testify in cases when they unlock a phone. The part you quoted addressed the second burden.
Where in the quote or context are you reading that they’re talking about a company that used to supply drugs?
Either way, it doesn’t matter. Simply because a company was involved in past orders or cases doesn’t connect them to future ones.
Every piece of software I ever purchased came with a long, legalese-laden “Terms and Conditions” basically stating they were responsible for nothing arising from the use of their software.
How many iPhones have been bricked for trying to jailbreak or tinker with it in some way that Apple does not approve of?
How many Cadillacs have been rendered permanently inoperable because the owner modified the engine?
The comparison between cars and an iPhone is a terrible one that doesn’t survive the first moment of examination. Had Apple claimed that they exercise the same amount of control over an iPhone as, say, HP does over a PC, I’m not sure I could argue with that. But compared to a car? Get real.
So to support your contention that Apple controls what people can download, you cite that the federal government explicitly recognized that people can do what they want with their iPhones, including jailbreaking them so they can use apps not approved by Apple?
It sure seems as if people are free to do what they wish with their iPhone, including load it with content they get someplace other than Apple.
Knowing that, it seems as if refusing to jailbreak an iPhone is a choice, not something people cannot do.
](Why Do People Think Jailbreaking Can Brick Your iPhone? [Rant])No cars are rendered permanently inoperable due to modifying the engine. Oh sure, you might have to replace the engine (and some other parts) but the car is still a car and you can replace parts until they all work again. Some people might have noticed that there is a sizable industry in America devoted solely to rebuilding old vehicles, for instance.
Apple has many reasons for wanting people to only use the app store, chief among them the 30% cut they take from revenue generated there by 3rd party apps. But no one is forced to rely on them; people make the choice to do so or to jailbreak their device and go elsewhere for apps.
Similarly, no one is forced to use only the engine that came with their car. People are free to replace it with some other engine.
Somebody who buys a new iPhone has a choice of what OS they want to put on it? Is that what you’re trying to say?
Your extraordinary efforts to deny straightforward facts is probably the best proof that Apple is full of crap when it says it has no more control of its products after being purchased than a car maker does after a vehicle has been purchased.
Fact: Apple has tried in numerous ways, some of which have been rejected under the law, to exercise a pretty substantial amount of control over iPhones that have been purchased. For various reasons, Apple has been plenty happy to have phones bricked because the user wanted to do something that Apple didn’t want them to do.
Fact: the typical car maker doesn’t care at all what you do to a car that you buy from them, except that certain actions may void warranties. No car maker attempts to brick your car because you changed the stereo or the transmission.
I thought we were talking about updating the iOS; that’s what your link talks about:
If you want to talk about people who purchase a new iPhone with that OS on it, then a) they know what the iOS is when they buy it and b)they are free to jailbreak it and thus not use the iOS that comes with the iPhone. Do you disagree?
Another analogy: when I bought my Scion xB, I had no choice in the type of engine that came with the car; do you think Toyota was exercising control over the car after I purchased it?
So you agree that Apple does not have control over people’s iPhones once they are purchased?
If I made a car and sold it to you and you tried to replace the engine with a lawnmower engine and the car didn’t work properly afterwards, which of us caused the problem? And why shouldn’t I happily sell you another car at that point?
Installing a manual transmission from a 1972 Volkswagen Beetle into a 2015 Peterbilt 579 will certainly not work, effectively “bricking” the truck until proper repairs can be done. Would you like other examples of aftermarket vehicle work that will render a vehicle inoperable?
I have provided cites that the mere act of jailbreaking will not in and of itself “brick” an iPhone. Grumman helpfully provided a cite showing that jailbreaking is permitted under the law.
An excellent decision, IMO. Apple properly argued that CALEA (brought up in Post #464) exempts Apple because Apple is not a telecommunications carrier.
And then Judge Orenstein laid waste to the government’s contention that the AWA applied, using a form of “absurd” many time over to describe their arguments.
Say you buy an iPhone and on your way home from the store Apple goes poof as a company. That means you (essentially) can’t install apps, use it as a payment device, or make certain repairs. Of course that doesn’t stop you entirely from using the phone, but it certainly removes important functionality. So even if you don’t want to call that control, it’s certainly a different relationship than Toyota selling a car.
Ignoring the errors in what a person could or could not do with an iPhone if Apple went poof one night, it seems that you agree that Apple does not exercise control over a purchased iPhone.
Sorry; it sure seemed from all the posts you’ve made about how Apple exerts control over people’s iPhones that you were arguing that Apple exerted control over people’s iPhones (like the point I challenged you on and in most of your self-quotes in Post #501).
