iPad and the Meaning of Jailbreaking

With the arrival of the iPad, I have been asked, several times now: Do the new features in the iPad — such as external keyboard support and an iPad version of iWork — eliminate, or at least reduce, the reasons to jailbreak iPhone OS devices?

Not at all.

The major reason to consider jailbreaking has been, and continues to be: the closed nature of the iPhone OS. Nothing much has changed here. Most especially, I am referring to the censorship Apple exercises in its App Store. Apple COO Tim Cook defended the App Store approval process recently, stating “We created the approval process to really make sure that it protected consumer privacy, to safeguard children from inappropriate content, and to avoid apps that degrade the core experience of the phone.” This is disingenuous at best — especially the last phrase.

Mr. Cook makes it sound as if Apple’s primary concern is the consumer. Apple is acting as a benevolent parent. However, this is just political rhetoric. In fact, Apple’s approval process exists primarily to benefit Apple. Apple keeps a tight control over apps that would open up access to the OS in any way, or reduce Apple’s ability to restrict what third-party hardware is permitted to work with iPhone OS devices, or might otherwise irritate Apple for any conceivable reason. It’s all about control and profitability. How it aids consumers is hardly the point.

To make this case more clearly, here is a list of just a few of the worthwhile or desirable things you cannot do on a standard iPhone — only because Apple doesn’t allow you to do so. In almost all cases, these are things you could do if you jailbroke your iPhone. [I have written about this topic numerous times, as evident from the links below, as well as via more general articles such as The iPhone: Everything in Your Pocket (Except a Mac).]:

• You can’t access iPhone OS files that are helpful to solve troubleshooting problems (as I describe in Bugs & Fixes: Solving ‘circular loop’ problems in iPhone apps). This is true even though you can easily access the comparable files in Mac OS X.

More generally, there is no Finder-like app to access the contents of the iPhone. Although less critical to the average user, there is similarly no Terminal app. The bottom line is that Apple keeps the iPhone OS almost completely off-limits to users.

• You can’t copy files to or from an iPhone over a USB connection (except in a few restricted cases) — other than for photos or via iTunes syncing. I describe this more in Apple Requires DigiDNA to Modify iPhone App and USB Feature Returns to FileApp.

• You can’t use Bluetooth except for headsets and peer-to-peer games (as I note in Will a Tablet Replace My MacBook?). Most notably, you cannot use Bluetooth for file transfers, even though this is a well-supported option in Mac OS X for other mobile phones.

With the iPad, Apple says you can use its Bluetooth keyboard, but I strongly suspect that this freedom will not be extended to include third-party keyboards (or Apple would have said so).

You can’t print to Bluetooth printers such as the Polaroid PoGo (as I detail in Print That, iPhone!). Actually, printing from the iPhone is very limited in general.

• In the U.S., you still can’t enable Internet tethering. AT&T remains mute on when (or even if, at this point) tethering will ever be enabled.

• You can’t mirror the iPhone display on a Mac or any projector system (except in very limited ways — such as to show a video or a photo slideshow or, with the iPad, a Keynote presentation). I covered this matter more in An iPhone Killer App May Be Left to Die.

• You can’t mount an iPhone as an external drive on your Mac — either via USB or wirelessly — even though you can mount an iPod nano or classic.

• You can’t have apps that attempt to add any feature that Apple has deliberately omitted from the OS, such as folders on the Home screen or multitasking.

• You can’t have apps with sexual content, beyond the relatively tame ones that survived Apple’s approval gauntlet (as I detail more in Bikinis and the App Store Approval Process). Apple allows R-rated movies on the iPhone, including those that display a level of nudity prohibited in apps. Considering that the iPhone supports parental controls, it is not clear to me why Apple has to be so restrictive.

• Apple has blocked, either temporarily or permanently, an assortment of apps based on bizarre claims of copyright infringement (as I covered in Apple’s App Store Rejections). As I know from personal experience (and which I may write more about at a later time), even mentioning the word “jailbreaking” in an app can lead to approval problems.

Again, none of the limitations in the above list are inherently necessary. In most cases, you can have these features by jailbreaking your iPhone. That’s why many people continue to jailbreak their devices — despite the continuing hassles in doing so (as I covered in iPhone Jailbreaking: The Landscape Shifts Again). The arrival of the iPad will not change this. It may be that Apple can successfully block attempts to jailbreak the iPad. But I am certain that people intend to give it a try.

As Matt Deatherage put it, in describing the App Store approval process: “No one wants to use the word censorship because it’s ugly. It’s also correct. Can you imagine a market dominated by a single bookseller that demanded to read and review all books before they went on sale? The very concept is ridiculous.”

So, no. The iPad does not change the jailbreak equation. My goal here, however, is not to encourage jailbreaking. Rather it is to encourage Apple to eliminate the reasons for jailbreaking — to open up the iPhone OS, to allow more third-party solutions to work with the iPhone OS, and to end unnecessary censorship. Will Apple ever do this? Never say never, but I am pessimistic about Apple’s plans in this regard.

Political Q & …A?

Her are a few questions I asked myself this week. I leave the answers up to you:

• Given that the Supreme Court divides up 5-4 on virtually every important case, with conservatives judges supporting the Republican viewpoint and liberals supporting the Democratic viewpoint — why should I have any respect for their decisions? If essentially half the judges strongly disagree with any decision, along political lines, why should I believe their decisions have even a wisp of impartiality? [Sadly, I’ve been forced to ask this before.]

• Republican Senators are succeeding in blocking all significant legislation by hanging together and adopting “Just Say No” as their motto. The media are largely giving them a pass on this.

Why am I almost certain that, years from now, when Republicans control the Senate, and the Democrats try the same Just Say No tactic, Democrats will be assaulted as anti-democracy and obstructionist? What’s worse, the attacks will work. Because that’s how ineffective Democrats are. They lose on both ends.

• Given that we are constantly told that both political parties need to move to the center to succeed, how can it be that they are 100% divided on everything. If they are all near the center, shouldn’t there be some overlap?

• Exactly how hypocritical are Republicans when they lambast a health care reform bill now that is essentially the same as a bill they supported back in the 1990’s?

• When is Obama going to learn that winning requires that he be on offense at least occasionally? His comments in the State of the Union address are a good start, but they require strong follow-up. When the Republican’s attack him and his response is mainly to say “let’s work together,” he looks weak and is doomed to fail.

It’s like he’s in a baseball game where his side is always in the field while his opponents are always at bat. You can’t ever score runs that way, no matter how well you play the game.

Revealed: Secrets of Apple’s Tablet

Wow. Guess what appeared on my doorstep this morning? The new Apple tablet, two days before its public unveiling. I’m not supposed to talk about it until Wednesday — but who cares? I’m not afraid of Apple’s legal department. I won’t reveal all, but here are a few highlights:

• You may be surprised at the name of the tablet: iRule. I was told that it refers to Apple’s expectation of the device’s market dominance. Turns out, it’s also the nickname that Apple employees affectionately use to refer to their boss, Steve Jobs.

• As widely predicted, the iRule will include an e-reader. That’s old news. What you do not yet know its that it will also sport a built-in coffeemaker. I can now confirm that Apple has worked out a deal with Keurig, whereby the iRule will accept Keurig’s coffee pods.

• How will you enter text on the iRule? This is really cool. The iRule projects an image of a full-sized keyboard onto the surface in front of you. And when I say full-sized, I mean it. It will have all 88 keys, even the black ones.

• The iRule will not ship until June. Is Apple concerned that Amazon’s Kindle may gain critical market share in the meantime? Not at all. Apple will announce that it is purchasing Amazon.com and, in its first move, will be discontinuing the Kindle.

• The operating system of the iRule? It’s neither Mac OS X nor iPhone OS. Instead, Apple has created a new third OS: Supreme Ruler OS. It combines the complexity of Mac OS X with the lack of flexibility of iPhone OS X. One example:

Similar to the Mac, there are seven different ways to transfer files between the iRule and other computing devices. Similar to the iPhone, however, they have all been disabled.

Click here for even more secrets revealed.

On the Supreme Court, Hypocrisy Rules

Remember the mantra of Republicans regarding nominees to the Supreme Court? “We oppose ‘activist’ judges, the ones who assume that the function of the Supreme Court is to write legislation rather than just interpret it; the ones who are willing to turn over years of precedents to achieve some political goal.”

So, under previous Republican administrations, we got non-activist judges. Right?

Wrong.

What could be more “activist” than reversing decisions dating back nearly a century, and ignoring established legislation such as the McCain-Feingold act — and ruling to allow corporations complete freedom in spending money on political campaigns? That’s exactly what the “conservative” 5-4 majority on the Court did last week.

Are the Republicans objecting to this? Don’t make me laugh.

Talk about hypocrisy. It doesn’t get more blatant than this. It appears that a judge is only an activist if their ruling is one that Republicans disagree with.

Meanwhile, thanks to this new ruling, we can sit back and watch a complete corporate takeover of America (assuming it hasn’t happened already).