iPhone Dev Team jailbreaks firmware 2.0... before it's out
Update: Dev chat room chatter claims that the 2.0 is now fully unlocked as well.
[Thanks to everyone who sent this in]
Filed under: Cellphones
Update: Dev chat room chatter claims that the 2.0 is now fully unlocked as well.
[Thanks to everyone who sent this in]
Relevant Posts
- PwnageTool 2.0.3 released, jailbreaks iPhone 2.0.2 (44 days ago - 58 Comments)
- iPhone 2.1 update is out: bug fixes and longer battery life promised (26 days ago - 452 Comments)
- iPhone firmware 2.0.2 is out... and angry (51 days ago - 293 Comments)
- DevTeam releases PwnageTool and QuickPwn 2.1, wants to rumble (25 days ago - 154 Comments)
- iPhone 2.1 software update announced (update: $10 for some iPod touch owners) (29 days ago - 155 Comments)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Oliver @ Mar 11th 2008 11:39PM
man, this is like the best of both worlds! imagine your legit apps like java (maybe), flash (another maybe), aim, and skype running alongside your illegit apps like um... the ones that explicit button indicates! haha
Raiden @ Mar 12th 2008 12:28AM
That's a non-profitable idea... illegit products don't make you any money... that just doesn't go right in Apple's books, or any other company's agendas...
Wii60 @ Mar 12th 2008 1:21AM
Nothing "illegit" about the jailbroken apps. They are just as real and capable as the SDK ones will produce.
It's free, it's legal, and its easy. No reason not to hack the hell out of your iPhone.
iH8Engadget @ Mar 12th 2008 1:39AM
Say w3rd. F&%K Apple for locking down their software. I commend them jailbreakers. Let this be a lesson Apple, quit locking down your devices. If you pay money for something, you should be able to do whatever the F*&K you want with your device. I hope they hack the hell outta the future "iPhone 3G" before it comes out too. Apple, you better listen to engadget and STOP locking up your devices. Not only are you pissing off the consumers, but your making enemies far and wide. Open your devices now, or we'll keep opening them by force!
Jonathan Worrel @ Mar 12th 2008 2:00AM
Now imagine if Apple and Sony agreed to create a signed and authorized homebrew coalition to allow us consumers to get what we really want out of our gadgets :)
Darren @ Mar 12th 2008 4:59AM
Java isn't an app, and I really think you don't want to have to install it.
Karl Viklund @ Mar 12th 2008 11:30AM
Wii60, you are wrong. Now when people have what they always wanted. A way to develop applications for the iPhone. They should stop hack around with the device and "Ihpone Dev team" should get a life.
Nick Catalano @ Mar 11th 2008 11:43PM
OK... but what is this going to accomplish other than allow you to run unsigned code/programs? I guess for people who demand having shell access to their iPhone this will be a good thing, but for the average user after the SDK is out they will have no need to jailbreak their phone.
Jeremy @ Mar 11th 2008 11:46PM
That's assuming the Draconian limitations Apple puts on SDK developed apps don't require a need for less lenient methodologies. I'm happy Apple is giving people what they need (SDK), but the odds of them giving me everything I want through said SDK is almost zero.
Nick Catalano @ Mar 11th 2008 11:53PM
@Jeremy
Of course they aren't going to provide everything a super-power-user wants. I wouldn't expect much in the way of command-line tools, for example, simply because giving such a thing to your average iPhone user would spell nothing but trouble.
From the way Jobs sounded at the presentation, they are going to be pretty lenient about things. They are already pretty good with the Podcast directory and every indication they have put out is that this will be similar to that directory.
rTwelve @ Mar 12th 2008 12:01AM
Actually, I'm extremely disturbed at the limitation against running apps in the background. The inability to run AIM while in other programs is ridiculous enough, but to completely ruin apps like MobileScrobbler (one of the best apps on Installer, by the way) is a dealbreaker for me.
But hey, Spore amirite?
engadget @ Mar 12th 2008 12:19AM
That's assuming your average user doesn't want to unlock their iPhone to use with non-blessed carriers... Something it seems a lot of average users are doing.
Cods @ Mar 12th 2008 12:12AM
@ Nick Catalano
...other than people with iPhones in countries where the iPhone is yet to be released (hello Australia, welcome to yesterday. Telstra, Optus, please get up off your collective @rses).
m @ Mar 12th 2008 12:26AM
if one assumes that apple will provide everything any sensible user might ever need, before he even knows he needs it, then sure, no problem. if you believe instead that apple isn't omniscient, and that real innovation relies on the free exchange of ideas--not very fashionable in this day and age, it would seem--apple's policies are less attractive. contrast the iphone to the palm pilot, and its open platform: thanks to their unique applications, which may never run on iphone, palm devices still retain a vital role in fields as unexpected as nursing. sadly, i believe that apple only really cares about what its partners in the entertainment and telecommunications industries want. the rest of us can either eat it, or go hungry. why else would they hobble what must be one of the greatest small computers ever?
Dave @ Mar 12th 2008 12:20AM
"Of course they aren't going to provide everything a super-power-user wants. I wouldn't expect much in the way of command-line tools, for example, simply because giving such a thing to your average iPhone user would spell nothing but trouble."
see...this is what's wrong, Apple feeling like they know what's "good for the consumer/user"...such bullshit. That commercial from 1984? It's the opposite of what Apple is now. Forget "Big Brother" how about "Big Apple"? (and im not talking about NYC)
Eric @ Mar 12th 2008 1:26AM
@rTwelve
I was under the impression that you can indeed run apps in the background, and the blurb that apple posted is more of a design guideline and not an absolute technical limitation. In fact, I'm pretty sure that its as simple as overriding applicationSuspend. Of course, even though we can emulate this and the code does in fact work, that doesn't mean that Apple won't change this between now and release nor do we know if they will approve apps that do this.
John @ Mar 12th 2008 2:03AM
eric,
The problem is that nobody is sure at this point what Apple will and will not pass as acceptable. It's safe to assume, however, that they're going to have a heavy hand when it comes to internet apps trying to run in the background, especially apps that try to run over EDGE. Keep in mind that the iPhone has its own data plan that's less expensive than a regular smartphone data plan.
What gets on my nerves, however, is that the terms of the SDK explicitly state that plugins are forbidden. I was really hoping someone would write a plugin for the Camera app that would turn the volume button into a shutter button so I can actually be in the pictures that I take. It also kills the hope for Flash, copy/paste, video, and MMS.
Really, it just looks like this SDK is turning into a toy shop. I really have no use for an accelerometer-driven digital level (look in the Human Interface Guidelines to see what I mean) or even Spore. All I want are decent internet applications and a full web browser (even the Wii has Flash support). Is it really that much to ask?
Nick Catalano @ Mar 12th 2008 3:23AM
The problem with plugins is that they start using bandwidth... a lot of bandwidth... Once a 3G iPhone comes out can AT&T handle thousands of handsets pulling down 5MB files every 20 seconds? As for modifying camera... you are messing with Apple's own apps.
Also, when I meant unlocking your phone I meant to run 3rd party apps. I have always thought of SIM-unlocking and activation override (which doesn't even require an unlock if I remember correctly) as separate endeavors. I guess someone is going to have to make a way to install 'official' iPhone apps onto the phone without using the app store... which is immediately going to invite entire new categories on torrent sites with unverifiable and untrusted code), so that is the risk you are taking
Perfect example that Apple is trying to avoid: Gmail Backup sending all of your info to their own website. Imagine if you downloaded an app called 'New Graphing Calculator.app' and all it did was wipe your phone? You could rename it to thousands of different things and users would be downloading it over and over again and bricking their phones. Which is especially an issue if they are in other countries where they could not just walk into an Apple store and ask for assistance
Namarrgon @ Mar 12th 2008 4:41AM
Bandwidth? How much bandwidth do you think playing YouTube videos take? Yes, a plugin *could* take that much (or even more), but so could any app.
Thing is, there's already millions of phones out there right now, from Nokia, Motorola, SE, LG, Samsung etc running *open* OSs like Symbian and WinMob - and yet somehow networks all around the world (including AT&T) cope just fine with those.
Quit with the bogus technical excuses already. It's Apple & AT&T protecting their commercial interests, nothing more.
Nick Catalano @ Mar 12th 2008 10:02AM
@Namarrgon
Jobs already said that they would approve VoIP clients as long as it didn't use the cellular network. I don't believe you can do that on any VoIP on ANY cellular network as it stands right now (there could be a carrier that allows it, I don't know)
I know someone mentioned plugins to existing apps. There is nothing preventing you from creating your own camera app (which probably isn't all that difficult) with more features. You simply cannot replace the current camera app, or edit it, like you can with android.
nikster @ Mar 12th 2008 7:45PM
@Namarrgon: Not true, other phones don't connect to GPRS/mobile data without asking. That the iPhone does so makes it a hell of a lot easier to use, but it also means developers have to be very careful with network access.
@m It's not even about Apple knowing what's good for the user, it's that Apple is going out of its way to place restrictions on the user. Ability to swap out the SIM card for another is something that anybody _needs_ - I know plenty of people not getting iPhones because of this, and as fantastic as it is, I would not have gotten one either if there was no way to jailbreak/unlock it. Imagine you travel to another country, you buy a $10 SIM card, and you have a mobile phone. It's unbelievably useful.
Namarrgon @ Mar 12th 2008 9:17PM
@Nick: Dunno about the US, but here in Australia, there's no such silly restrictions on *what* you do, only how much of it you do. Most WM6 and Nokia S60 phones do SIP calls natively over cell (or wifi if they have it), plus Skype, fring etc will do the same and are freely installable. Three even sells a Skype-branded cellphone. Limit is only the data cost, e.g. 5GB/month for $39 from Vodafone. iPhone looks very restricted from here.
BTW the plugin restriction applies to *user* apps. You can certainly write your own camera app, but you can't make it use plugins of any sort. That's the whole problem, and it eliminates nearly half of the apps I like the most, and use regularly.
@nickster: Sorry, but many phones can and do start data connections without confirming - that's left up to the app. The OS may notify you in an icon somewhere, but it doesn't wait for confirmation. That's how my WM and S60 phones behave at least.
Ron @ Mar 11th 2008 11:44PM
one word.
owned.
Mike P. @ Mar 11th 2008 11:48PM
...must be a typo. Surely, he means "pwned".
El Capitaine @ Mar 11th 2008 11:57PM
No, he means owned.
He doesnt want to used 'pwned' for fear that he will get sued for infringing a trademark:
http://kotaku.com/362753/pwnage-tm
Paul @ Mar 11th 2008 11:45PM
Apple is just like Sony, they try to prevent hackers but ultimately they can't. Like Sony, this is a battle they can't win. Might as well just embrace jailbreak.
engadget @ Mar 12th 2008 12:14AM
I think looking like they're trying to prevent hackers, whether or not they can win, is an important game for a company like Apple to play. That way they can say to potential carriers "Yes, all iPhone users in your country will have to get an account with YOU!" and to music companies (re DRM) "Don't worry, your music is 100% safe!"... All the while knowing the phone can be cracked and the DRM can be removed by those who really care.
mabhatter @ Mar 12th 2008 1:10AM
In a sense, anybody can get the SDK for $99 and download apps to THEIR iPhone. I don't think the Apple vetting applies to that code outside the basic restrictions of the SDK. That should be enough for a "cottage" industry working with just source code. In a sense I think the SDK makes the Jailbreaks unnecessary because YOU can put what ever you want on there, at least thru the dev tools, and not void your warranty is probably more than enough for the majority of jailbreakers. Of course Apple is getting another $99 out of you for a feature that "should have been there"...
Ignacio @ Mar 12th 2008 9:05AM
"In a sense, anybody can get the SDK for $99 and download apps to THEIR iPhone. [...]
In a sense I think the SDK makes the Jailbreaks unnecessary because YOU can put what ever you want on there, at least thru the dev tools, and not void your warranty is probably more than enough for the majority of jailbreakers. Of course Apple is getting another $99 out of you for a feature that "should have been there"..."
Two problems with that:
1. The iPhone is not available in most countries, so you NEED to jailbreak it to even be able to use it.
2. The SDK $99 that allows developers to install their own apps on the iPhone for testing and development IS ONLY OPEN TO US DEVELOPERS and Apple hasn't committed to a specific date or timeline as to when it will be available to the rest of the world.
cduran01 @ Mar 12th 2008 9:48AM
The problem is that the $99 developers pay is only to be able to run your apps on the iPhone while the iPhone is docked to the developers computer (this is called debug mode). The app still needs to be distributed through iTunes app store in order to have it running in release mode and not be docked to a computer.
There is, however, the enterprise program which is $299 and that one does let you load an app in release mode to your iPhone. The enterprise version is for companies to develop in house apps that only they use and wouldn't make sense putting on iTunes app store.
Tom @ Mar 11th 2008 11:51PM
Apple to Hackers: Thanks for finding our holes, we'll plug them up before the final release.
arteekay @ Mar 11th 2008 11:55PM
Hackers to Apple: No worries son, you've got plenty more to go around.
andres @ Mar 12th 2008 12:24AM
apples to oranges
*implosion*
Mystic @ Mar 11th 2008 11:53PM
Who says Apple is doing anything from trying to keep them out? Just because a jailbreak gets broken by a firmware update, doesn't mean it was done on purpose. Goddamn you're dumb Engadget.
Carl Vitullo @ Mar 11th 2008 11:55PM
i'd say when an update bricks normal phones in addition to catching/bricking EVERY jailbreaked phone, there's something up.
they definitely didn't just accidentally do that.
although they seemed to stop caring now.
Joshua Topolsky @ Mar 12th 2008 1:17AM
We're so dumb, and yet, you're 86 comments deep. Weird how you keep reading.
Darkest Daze @ Mar 11th 2008 11:53PM
Who would of thought that after the 1984 Apple Superbowl commercial, that Apple would become the big talking head and we'd become the little guy standing up against Steve's draconian rule.
El Capitaine @ Mar 11th 2008 11:56PM
No, he means owned.
He is using this term, rather than the commonly used 'pwned' for fear that he will get sued for trademark infringement...
http://kotaku.com/362753/pwnage-tm
Carl Vitullo @ Mar 11th 2008 11:57PM
yay they have a teapot demo!!
i love how that model has stayed with the 3d community for so long.
KEROLiUKAS @ Mar 12th 2008 12:18AM
Impressive? Yes. Do I really care about the overrated iPhone? No.
Samurai Jack @ Mar 12th 2008 12:25AM
I'm not convinced. Apple seems to want to have it both ways. They have their exclusive carrier contracts which provide them with oodles of revenue. No doubt those contracts require them to fix software bugs and protect the carrier's interests. But they've also gone on record as saying they won't actively do things to undo the efforts of the jailbreakers. This is why you won't be able to run Skype over Edge, as that hurts AT&T. But they're only willing to take the carrier's interests so far. Skype over WiFi will happen.
I think if there were no iPhone but only the iPod Touch Apple would openly encourage people to develop every application under the sun. But they are restricted by the lucrative contracts they signed to get the iPhone launched.
Jordan @ Mar 12th 2008 12:34AM
WINDOWS!
Jordan @ Mar 12th 2008 12:34AM
APPLE!
Jordan @ Mar 12th 2008 12:34AM
WINDOWS!
Jordan @ Mar 12th 2008 12:34AM
WINDOWS!
Jordan @ Mar 12th 2008 12:35AM
Just thought I would get the fanboy arguments done with and out of the way.
snitch @ Mar 12th 2008 12:36AM
This is good but why would people put free software on app tap when they can get at least a $1 for they work from over 4 to 5 million iphone owners at the app store???? also in a legal way
Precision @ Mar 12th 2008 7:24AM
guidelines set by apple aren't really guidelines in the sense that they're mandatory rather than voluntary. don't follow guidelines, don't get software published.
now, if you were a developer and one of those open source guys, would you really want to cripple your software just to follow some unreasonable guidelines ?
kaisa @ Mar 12th 2008 4:29PM
Honey cause there is no itunes store for all countries
paul34 @ Mar 12th 2008 12:39AM
LINUCKS 4EVURRR!!!111!!!!11~~~~ omg~!!!!!