Hey guys! Today what I wanted to write about what I think the best pieces of software to jailbreak iPhone 4 and iPhone 4s.
All the following programs will automatically jailbreak iPhone 4/4s. They are maintained by their owner so that they’re always up to date with latest iOS versions and basebands. The programs are made to work on all iDevices – this means that if you have another iPhone, iPad or iPod touch (no matter what generation) it would work for them too! Overall the process is very simple with each of them. You download and install the program. Then you follow step by step instructions (including pictures!) to get your device jailbroken. If you had any questions at all you contact their customer support, who are there to ENSURE you get your device jailbroken. Excellent!
Personally, I say, if you’re about to jailbreak your iPhone 4/4s – don’t just try to do it by yourself. The process can be a massive headache, and doing one thing wrong can erase your phone from all apps, contacts or music (I’ve done that before when I tried it!). Trying to jailbreak the iPhone yourself, you’re also risking bricking your iPhone (meaning making it a brick, completely useless!). Instead just get one of the following and complete the process in under 5 minutes, with great software and support staff to help you. From the best to the worst, here they are:
1) Unlock Easy
I’ve only found this site not long ago, but it was so much better than anything else that it easily takes the top spot. This program and the site it sits on is just a case of “you have to see it to believe it”. I personally tried it with 2 friends who have an iPhone 4, my own iPhone 4s and iPad 2, and also my mother’s iPhone 3GS. Worked flawlessly without a hitch!
After downloading the jailbreak and installing it, the entire process of jailbreaking and unlocking your iPhone takes around 4 minutes. You just click the “Start” button, go make yourself a sandwich, and by the time you come back – it’s finished.
This solution is a complete jailbreak (which some people refer to as a jailbreak-unlock). Some of the other options mentioned here don’t unlock your phone. I’ll explain what I mean…
To Jailbreak your iPhone means giving it some extra functionality by allowing it to accept 3rd party apps (and other things…).
To Unlock your iPhone will allow you to use whatever SIM card you want with it – from any carrier or country. Most iPhones come locked to the mobile operator you sign the contract with, and unlocking your phone releases that lock!
So it’s a very nice bonus that Unlock Easy unlocks your phone and gives you that extra freedom to move to another carrier and still be able to use your iPhone.
Payment for the program can be done using Paypal if you want – which is a very safe way to pay if you’re not happy with what you received. The program comes with thirty-days money back guarantee, without any questions asked.
My absolute favorite thing about UnlockEasy is that the owner of the site is just a decent guy who really wants to help people get the maximum from their iPhones – which means their support people are really helpful and quick to answer whatever questions may arise.
The instructions to use the program were super easy to follow, and the price was very reasonable. These guys are the cream of the crop, without costing more money!
The instructions to use the program were super easy to follow, and the price was very reasonable. These guys are the cream of the crop, without costing more money!
Overall I’d rate them 9.5 out of 10. Click here to check out their site.
Yet another program that I used and thought highly of. It used to be the one I recommended to everyone before I found Unlock Easy, so they’re worth the mention. The Jailbreak process takes a while longer compared – about 15 minutes was the longest I got on an iPhone 4 once.
There were 2 things I didn’t really like about them. The first was their support staff didn’t provide a great service in my opinion. They don’t have live support or a phone number number I could use, and some of the e-mails I wrote to them took them longer than 24 hours to respond to. This is really not cool if you need your iPhone to be working properly all the time like me!
The other issue was that their solution took a bit longer for the jailbreak to be completed. Not that big of a deal unless you do it a lot (I had a few devices I did for my friends etc…).
Overall, it’s still an alright solution if Unlock Easy isn’t working and you need to jailbreak your iPhone 4/4S as soon as possible. The instructions were easy to follow and the software worked as promised. Rating: 6/10. Click here to check out their site now.
This is an OK product, but nothing too amazing about it. It works just fine and that’s probably the best thing I can say about it (that still makes it better than a lot of stuff out there that just doesn’t work!).
Last time I foolishly tried it, it took over 30 minutes to finish Jailbreaking an iPhone. The instructions were confusing and for a moment there I thought I did something really wrong because it took so long. It turned out everything was fine, but they can really make better instructions! For that kind of service I found the price to be too expensive. The customer service was OK for me, but I think not everyone would approve. The phone number to call was in India! I never ended up calling though. Either way, my overall rating is 5/10.
Either way, that’s it for this review. I appreciate your visit on your site, and hope you enjoy setting your iPhone free.
Robbie Crowe
It has been said that jailbreaking your iPhone 4s opens you up to all sorts of problems with your iPhone. One jailbreak effect could be that your device slows down, stops certain features from working properly, and makes your device vulnerable to all sorts of viruses and malware. There is always a possibility that your iPhone 4s could become susceptible to malware and viruses—though the possibility is extremely rare. Nonetheless, there is always the risk that something could happen. Jailbreakers know this, and I knew it when I jailbroke my iPod Touch, third-generation device. This does not prevent jailbreakers from enjoying the experience of owning admin privileges on their iOS device. For those of you who have not given an iPhone 4s jailbreak a try: you are missing out on a wonderful experience.
Tech experts the world over have affirmed the possibilities and vulnerabilities created through jailbreaking; even Apple offers the following warning to its iPhone customers:
“Making unauthorized modifications to the software on an iPhone violates the iPhone software license agreement. The common term for modifying an iPhone is jail-breaking, with a particular emphasis on the second part of that term. Really. Should you be unable to use your iPhone due to an unauthorized software modification, its repair will not be covered under the warranty.”
Jailbreaking is termed “an unauthorized software modification” and voids the warranty on your device. Apple goes to great lengths to discourage customers from attempting an iPhone 4s jailbreak. Basically, Apple’s statement says that, although customers purchase their iDevices, they do not have the right to receive admin privileges and control over those devices. In the words of those who write on the subject of jailbreaking, Apple considers the purchase of an iPod Touch, iPhone, or iPad as a “loan” or “borrowed” transaction, not a claim to ownership over the device. Does this make any sense? I think not.
At the same time, what Apple does not tell you is that any iDevice, whether jailbroken or not, is vulnerable to malware, viruses, and hackers. There is one reason why a non-jailbroken device is susceptible to hacking and illegality: iCloud.
In my article titled “ICloud: Convenience or Risk?,” I made the case that iCloud’s multi-device syncing allows your documents, emails, and other data to make its way to your other devices via wi-fi connection. The problem with syncing is that anyone can be granted access to your documents by his or her proximity to your wireless connection and network. The US Government viewed iDevices as such a risk to national security that they chose the Amazon Kindle as their e-book device over the iPad. It is pretty telling when a national government does not choose the iPad because of its security risks. If the iPad is a security risk, what about the iPhone?
Thus, while the iCloud provides free storage for emails and documents, and seems to be a new technology that should make our lives easier, it poses a security risk with regard to our private documents such as bank statements, emails, and company plans (if you work for a business). Even if you choose not to jailbreak your iDevice, iCloud (if so activated) opens the door for hackers to invade your account and take over your personal email, iTunes, and a host of other sites that you frequent.
A good case in point that shows this to be true is the recent hacking situation regarding Mat Honan, who used to work as a Gizmodo journalist and former WIRED magazine editor. The details can be found in the August 4, 2012 article in Forbes magazine titled, “The Dangerous Side of Apple’s ICloud.” In the article, Forbes quotes some of Honan’s statements about the hacking experience. Honan goes into detail so far as to provide up-to-the-minute information about how the hacker took complete control over his accounts:
“At 4:50pm, someone got into my iCloud account, reset the password and sent the confirmation message about the reset to the trash…”
“At 4:52pm they sent a Gmail password recovery email to the .mac account. Two minutes later, an email arrived notifying me that my Google account password had changed.”
“At 5:00PM, they remote wiped my iPhone.”
“ ‘5:01’they remote wiped my iPad.’
“At 5:05pm, they remote wiped my MacBook Air.” (http://www.forbes.com/sites/adriankingsleyhughes/2012/08/04/the-dangerous-side-of-apples-icloud/)
As you can see, it did not take the hacker an hour or a few hours; all it took was minutes, and he had taken control of all Mat Honan’s confidential accounts.
Not only was the accounts takeover done fast (within a matter of minutes); it was also easy to do because there was no fortified verification process in place. Adrian Kingsley Hughes of Forbes Magazine writes:
“As pointed out in the comments on Honan’s post, another problem with iCloud is that you only need a username and password to access the account, while Google accounts can be protected by a 2-step verification” (Adrian Kingsley Hughes, “The Dangerous Side of Apple’s ICloud,” Forbes Magazine (Tech): August 4, 2012).
ICloud’s protection is not the same as Google’s; this means that Apple’s iCloud login process is too easy and opens the door for hackers to make their way through any iDevice. Think about it: if you can jailbreak an iOS device with just compatible jailbreak programs (and a few clicks of the mouse or mousepad), what would prevent hacking from being a similarly easy process?
There is another vulnerability to your device, even if you decide not to jailbreak. What is it? Read my next post titled “Why GPS Tracking Makes Your Device Vulnerable” at ijailbreak3gs.com.
I realize that, for the last few weeks, I have written many posts in disagreement with Apple’s recent legal behavior. I acknowledge that I am a lover of Apple technology, seeing that I own a MacBook Pro, IPod Touch 3G, and the new iPad. My twin sister worked for Apple for a few years, so I certainly hold Apple in a dear place in my life. It has been a dream to write on Apple technology and I feel rather privileged to have the opportunity I have been given. At the same time, however, I want to make it clear that I do not criticize Apple because I have some secret vendetta or vengeance plan against them; I do so because I am convinced that they have taken their lawsuits way too far.
This week, I found myself reading an article from Forbes magazine that comforted me and reminded me that I am not alone in my thinking. The article, written by Anthony Wing Kosner, titled “Has Apple ‘Overscrolled’ Its Case Against Samsung, And What To Do About Tech Patents?,” is one worth considering in the never-ending lawsuit battle between Apple and Samsung. In my post on scrolling bounce and other features in Apple’s lawsuit, I made the point that certain features such as zoom and navigation are not new to Apple’s iPhone but have been in the tech world since desktop computers. Anthony Kosner agrees in his comment on Apple’s scroll bounce:
“I’m no patent lawyer, but Apple’s claims do smack of over-reaching, or in terms of its case against Samsung, ‘overscrolling,’ to me. Along with what are likely some legitimate innovations in the 381 patent…also includes, ‘that nifty little scroll bounce when you’ve reached the end of a list of items.’ This ‘rubber banding,’ or the way graphic elements move slightly off the edge of the screen and the [sic] bounce back when a user’s finger ‘overscrolls,’ is harldy [sic] unique to Apple. To anyone who works with computer graphics and animation, and especially for people familiar with JavaScript, this little user interface enhancement is just an example of ‘easing.’Easing uses various kinds of equations…to make screen elements accelerate, decelerate, and bounce, and it has been part of the animate function in the popular JQuery JavaScript library since before the launch of the first iPhone (Forbes, underlining mine).”
This is a fact I did not know: that the scrolling bounce feature at the end of webpages is a feature of computer graphics that has existed longer than the iPhone. This was news for me; but it reveals what I said in my last post about Apple. When you examine the list of claims that Apple places in its lawsuit, you will be more confused than ever as to why the company wants to sue over them. Here is the list of claims provided from the full length of Kosner’s quote above:
- Touching the screen to move documents, tapping to zoom and navigate
- Turning the tablet or smartphone from “portrait” to “landscape” mode
When you examine the claims above for which Apple claims it merits compensation, you find that these items center around the touchscreen—which, unfortunately for Apple, the company did not create. They are, as Anthony Kosner says, “easing.” Can you imagine operating a tablet without the ability to touch the screen and move documents? If you cannot tap to zoom in on something, how will you be able to read it if the print on the page is too small? If you are watching a movie or playing a game on your iPad or other electronic tablet, how can you enjoy it if you are forced to watch the game in portrait mode—which cuts off the widescreen enjoyment you could have in landscape mode?
All of these conveniences are necessary to attract users to utilize the devices; how can they be enjoyed if they lack these things due to an Apple patent? Since Apple did not create them first, how do you think your user experience would be reduced if, because of a patent, these features did not exist in Apple’s smartphones and tablets? I may not be as familiar with JavaScript as Kosner is, but I remember that the famous “Etch-A-Sketch” could turn from portrait to landscape mode. At least as far back in my childhood memories as I can go, portrait-to-landscape twisting always existed. Apple did not invent this when it made the iPhone and iPad.
Apple has been a leader in innovation; at the same time, however, it fails to realize that its own company was given a ripe environment to create because of the work of other tech “giants” who provided the ideas they find to be “standards-essential” today. Thus, I can only foresee a tech market where companies are allowed to use existing market ideas and add their own creative flair. Yet, consumers pose a tension to this, as they want something convenient but do not care about its source. As Kosner notes:
“For the pure sake of innovation, it would be great if companies had to ‘work around’ each others’ patents and create wholly new solutions…[but] for consumers, once a design pattern has taken hold, it’s hard to shake because it becomes what they intuitively know. One of the central tenets of user experience is to make the gap between what a user knows and what they need to know to use your application as small as possible” (Kosner, “Has Apple ‘Overscrolled’ Its Case, page 2, underlining mine).
Here is where the tension lies: Apple wants to discuss everything in terms of patents; the consumer views the market in terms of convenience. When it comes to patents, conveniences do not matter; when it comes to convenience, patents do not matter because the consumer wins out. If the market is consumer-driven, a claim I make in an iPhone 3GS jailbreak post, then rigid patents of the sort Apple desires will stifle innovation as well as consumer confidence; if consumer confidence is stifled, the tech economy will be as well. While Apple does not want to be “the developer for the world,” it must be a world developer if it hopes to survive economic setback and defeat. Stay tuned for more iPhone 4s jailbreak news.
This post continues from the first post in which I define standards-essential and non-standards-essential patents. In my last post, I took the time to define the nature of a standards-essential patent. I agree with Tim Cook’s definition: it is the authority or power to grant licensure rights to companies to use a feature or idea. The patent owner must grant licensure rights in a reasonable matter. In this, I agree with Tim Cook. A standards-essential patent grants usage rights to smartphone and tablet companies regarding common features in the current era. One basic feature of the smartphone (minus Wi-Fi and LTE) is the touchscreen. Touchscreens have not always been the method of interaction with phones, but strides in technology have made touchscreens a common feature of smartphones and tablets, no matter the company. You are able to reach Cydia after you jailbreak your iPhone 4s by way of a touchscreen that opens the applications your fingers touch.
For now, it is good to have a definition of “standards-essential” and distinguish this type of patent from “non-standards essential.” Non-standards-essential patents are licensure rights of the owner that are not basic features of items, such as smartphones and electronic tablets in this case. That is, the feature in question is not necessary for the existence of a smartphone or tablet. One such example of a non-standards-essential patent is the “direct call” feature that is part of the Samsung Galaxy S III smartphone. Direct call is a feature that grants the S III user the ability to dial a number, place it to his or her ear, and watch the phone dial the number automatically. This feature is not necessary for a smartphone to survive. Smartphones do not need this feature, nor do they need other features such as WiFiSync (belonging to Cydia developer Greg Hughes, not Apple), Notification Center, FaceTime (Apple’s iPhone and MacBook Pro), voice activation, music, or noise cancellation. These are all features that are not basic to smartphones, features that many companies want to make exclusive to the smartphones of the company responsible for the idea(s).
Taking these “extra” features above, such as WiFiSync, we can see that Wi-Fi is necessary for WiFiSync to thrive. Therefore, a company cannot sue for WiFi use, as I said in my last post (Wi-Fi is standards-essential). If you take notification center, basic Internet is necessary to have a notification center; however, within innovative boundaries, each smartphone company may decide to tailor their email notifications a different way—and these differences are non-standards-essential patents for which companies can sue each other. Internet capability, however, is essential to email notifications, so a company cannot sue others for having Internet capability on their smartphones (a standards-essential feature). The distinction between standards-essential and non-standards-essential patents can be seen in the differences between Wi-Fi and WiFiSync (application). While WiFiSync is certainly impressive, it is not a basic feature of smartphones. Just years ago, individuals who wanted emails saved to more than one device sent them to a personal email box—which they could access from the Internet on each of their devices. Syncing was a feature available to Apple’s iPhones once upon a time, but syncing was a downloadable feature—not an action that could be done via wireless fidelity. There was “Wi-Fi” and “Sync,” as demonstrated by Greg Hughes icon for the new application (he combined the WiFi and Sync logos for his application); “WiFiSync,” however, was a different thing entirely.
Another non-standards essential idea is Samsung’s “popup play” feature, one that allows you to surf the Web, send an email or text, and leave your phone on your desktop while your movie continues to play. The “burst shot” feature is even more impressive, as it allows you to take twenty pictures at once while selecting the best photo for you to save. You can send it to your friends automatically if you want, saving you time that you would use normally to shoot a photo via email or Facebook. Direct call, as I mentioned earlier in this post, is another feature that isexclusively Samsung. These examples are not meant to market the Samsung Galaxy S III, but provide you with some examples of innovation that cannot be copied by other manufacturers.
These two definitions are significant because they determine a company’s case for lawsuit. If a company has a complaint against a standards-essential patent, then the company has no grounds for a lawsuit; if the company sues another over a non-standards-essential patent, then it is justified and need only demonstrate its case by way of evidence and argument.
These two definitions are significant because they determine a company’s case for lawsuit. If a company has a complaint against a standards-essential patent, then the company has no grounds for a lawsuit; if the company sues another over a non-standards-essential patent, then it is justified and need only demonstrate its case by way of evidence and argument.
Now that the definitions have been clearly defined, we can inquire about the nature of Apple’s lawsuits with and by other companies. That discussion will take place in my next post. Visitijailbreak3gs to read further.
For the last two weeks or so, Apple and Samsung have been two famous electronic companies in the news. Apple sued Samsung, claiming that the company copied its own tablet and phone designs, while Samsung faced primary injunctions—one right after the other. It seemed that Samsung had lost the battle until a UK judge ruled in favor of Samsung with the “Samsung’s are not as cool” judgment (this statement will live on in infamy). Apple was forced to accept its humiliation: for the next six months, the company must keep a “Samsung did not copy our designs” statement on its UK Apple website—though the judge granted the company freedom of conscience to think whatever it chooses. Meanwhile, Samsung carried forward with the sale of its tablets and smartphones, particularly the Samsung Galaxy S III.
In the news this week, Tim Cook was reported as meeting with Samsung to have some form of friendly discussion with the Android-smartphone rival company about the whole ordeal. Apple’s own Tim Cook says that the patent wars are a royal “pain,” but the UK ruling makes the patent wars far more painful for Apple than Samsung. Keep in mind that Apple has $96 million bond riding on its case before Judge Lucy Koh in northern California this coming July 30.
Tim Cook sat down with All Things Digital recently and spoke about the patent wars. This is what I transcribed from the conversation:
Hostess: “Let’s talk about the patent wars: Apple, Samsung, Google. Is it a problem for innovation?”
Tim Cook: “is it a problem for innovation? From our point of view, it’s important that Apple not be the developer for the world. We cannot take all of our energy and all of our care, and finish the painting, and have someone else put their name on it. We cannot have that…the worse thing in the world that can happen to you if you’re an engineer and you’ve given your life to something is to have someone to rip it off and put their name on it. What we want to accomplish is, we just want people to invent their own stuff.”
Host: “But there are people accusing you of ripping them off.”
TC: “When you look at those, the vast majority of those are on standards-essential patents. This is an area where the patent system is broken today. A standards-essential patent carries with it a responsibility by the person who owns the patent to license it in a fair and reasonable…way.”
Host: “What’s one example of a standards-essential patent?”
TC: “Something fundamental to connecting to the 3G network. The issue with the system (as I see it relative to this) is that this is an economic argument. No one should be able to get an injunction off of a standards-essential patent.”
Host: “you’re saying that when you sue somebody, it’s because you’ve finished the painting and somebody’s ripping you off; and when people are suing you, they’re trying to get more money than they should get under the way standards-essential patents are understood. Nobody else feels as though they’ve finished a painting that you’ve ripped off?”
TC: “I can’t tell you how people feel. What I’m saying Walt, is that Apple has not sued anyone over standards-essential patents that we own, because we view it’s fundamentally wrong to do that. The intention was that some payment be made, and you can always argue about the payment and there has to be a forum for solving those disputes. The problem in this industry is, if you add up what everyone says the standards-essential patents are worth, no one else could be in the phone business! Competition would be locked out. There’s some of this that is maddening, a waste, a time-suck. However, does it stop innovation? No, it’s not gonna stop us from innovating…”
As can be seen from the transcribed excerpt above, Tim Cook had a lot to say about Apple’s position with regard to other companies. It is interesting that he talks about how terrible it is for someone to steal Apple’s ideas; what about the fact that Apple has stolen from other companies?
When asked about Apple’s patent theft, Tim Cook turned to his definition of “standards-essential” and “non-standards-essential” patents. A standards-essential patent is one that is licensed to manufacturers by the patent owner that provides a basic feature of an item. In the transcribed excerpt above, Tim Cook says that an example of a standards-essential patent involves some basic feature of 3G. Although he did not say what the basic feature is, let us imagine that the basic feature of 3G is cell phone signals. Tim Cook would say that one company cannot take another to court and demand an injunction because another company operates using a cell phone connection. Cell phone connections are basic to cell phone and smartphone operations. In the same way, one company cannot sue another because they both use wireless fidelity (Wi-Fi) technology. Wi-Fi has become a standard in today’s smartphone market, and the Wi-Fi patent a “standards-essential” patent.
For now, I have discussed standards-essential patents; I will discuss non-standards-essential patents in the next post. Stay tuned for more iPhone 4s jailbreak discussion.
You can view more information about Tim Cook’s interview with All Things Digital here.
I know that this post may confuse some and might even horrify others—because the post title says it all. Some days ago, I wrote here at the blog that I jailbroke my iPod Touch for the first time. Jailbreaking was an easy experience, thanks to Redmond Pie and Redsn0w. What surprised me the most was when I discovered that there was a jailbreak app called “iDroid” that could place both Android and iOS on your device at the same time. IDroid, for most iOS users, places the Android OS on your device (you have an iOS device, so you do not need to reinstall the current OS).
There are those in the tech world who have come to appreciate both Android and iOS, though the two operating systems seem to be worlds apart. There are those that think the idea is absurd: “Why do you want to place Android on your iOS? Why don’t you just go and purchase an Android tablet?” was the opinion of one YouTuber. The individual created a six or seven-minute post where he ranted and raved about how ridiculous it is to imagine placing another operating system on your device; rather, you should go out and purchase another device in order to experience the Android operating system.
On one hand, I can understand why this gentleman and others are so skeptical about the whole idea: for one, this made perfect sense back some ten years ago. While the Internet was thriving, few had even thought of placing these two operating systems on the same device—few tried it. When I was a kid, I could remember traveling to the local Radio Shack to purchase a “Windows” computer, as opposed to a “Mac” computer, etc. Computers were labeled in terms of software; some computers offered one brand while others offered alternative brands. If a computer came installed with one operating system, parents consented to the pre-installed brand in order to save money. This, then, is the thought of the YouTuber. At the same time, however, there are benefits that you can reap from the iDroid application as well as the coexistence of two operating systems on your device:
- You need only one device instead of two
- You can switch to either OS whenever you want
- You save money, spending on one device alone
- Allows you to experiment with an alternative OS before you purchase an Android device
First, installing iDroid (having Android and iOS) one device allows you to rely on one device instead of two. Whenever you want to leave your home or office, you can grab one tablet or phone and go. Taking two devices with you to access two operating systems can be a headache and a pain. The more devices you have to pack, the greater the trouble in which you can find yourself. You are more likely to drop one device if you have two in your hands or jacket pockets—and you may be forced to purchase another. There are dangers and risks that your devices are susceptible to when you have to perform a “juggling act” and handle two electronic instruments.
Another convenience offered by iDroid is the option of switching operating systems whenever you want. Some iOS users want the option of changing their operating system when surfing the web, so as to adjust to the new one. IDroid provides this convenience.
IDroid, to add to the above benefits, is also a money saver. When you download the application onto your device, you can sample what Android will look like before you invest in an Android tablet. You cannot get the full experience, however, because the Android OS is on an iOS device; however, you get a sample of what the system will look like, what the differences between Android and iOS are, and how aesthetically pleasing (or displeasing) the user interface is before you break your pockets to purchase an Android tablet.
This ties into the last one: iDroid allows you to experiment with an alternative OS before you purchase a new device containing it. Consumers want to know by experimentation and sampling whether or not a device is worth the additional cost. Some iOS users may have the money to invest but are torn by various items they want. They do not know if they want an Android device or a summer vacation, etc. For them, experimenting with iDroid provides some small comfort in their selection of the item in which they choose to invest. Others benefit from iDroid because they have their eyes set on various operating systems: iOS, Windows, WebOS, Android, etc. Some consumers have experimented with all these operating systems over the years, and find each operating system to have something they want and something they dislike. For them, Android seems to be a little of both like and dislike, but they still want to give the look and feel a try before they give it a go.
The critical, sarcastic YouTuber who smashed consumers for wanting Android on their iOS device made a point worth considering: you cannot get the same experience of Android as an Android tablet provides. This is true; however, to fail to understand the want for Android on iOS is to fail to understand the reason why an iOS user would want the jailbreak “Metroon” app and theme on his or her iOS desktop. Sometimes, users just want to explore and see the cool things they can do with their iOS devices. For the experimental jailbreakers of our time: proceed. There will be more iPhone 4s jailbreak news to come.
Before I get started, I would like to announce that the writers of ijailbreak4s.com have created two new projects, http://ijailbreak3gs.com/ and http://iunlock4s.com/. If you read enough here and want more information, we ask that you would check out the two newest WordPress sites available. At the jailbreak3gs and unlock4s sites, we pay more attention to apps, protective covers, and other iPhone accessories than we do here at the iPhone 4s jailbreak site. Our goal here is to provide current news in the iPhone world, with the other two sites set up to provide information on user needs for the iPhone. These two new sites provide ideas regarding the types of apps you should download, what protective cover you should use for your iPhone case (waterproof or not), and other insightful information.
This post is set aside to discuss what I titled it: my journey to the dark side of jailbreaking. Yesterday morning, I did something that I have not done for the first few weeks here at the blog—I decided (finally) to jailbreak my iPod Touch. Since I started researching and writing on jailbreaking, I have learned enough to know that Apple has held out on its customers, controlling what they have access to and what they do not on their iDevices. Once I read through stories of jailbreaking (which I suggest that you do as well), it became evident to me that I was still in Apple’s clutches.
At the time, however, my refurbished iPod Touch, third generation, had iOS 4.3.5 software. What many do not know about this version of iOS is that it was specifically created to handle security issues with iOS 4.3.3, the version that preceded it. All the reading I did on iOS 4.3.5 said, “You can only do a tethered jailbreak with this software.” Tethered jailbreaks do not allow you to jailbreak your device unless it is connected to the USB port of your laptop or desktop PC. If I jailbroke on the old software, I would have to connect the iPod Touch to my MacBook Pro laptop, each time I reboot the device. Call me spoiled, but I did not want a tethered jailbreak or the inconveniences that come with it.
I decided to connect my iPod Touch to iTunes and download the latest software. I had read somewhere that you can downgrade or upgrade your software. Since it seemed easier to upgrade (and I knew a jailbreak solution for iOS 5.1.1 had been invented), I moved my software from 4.3.5 to 5.1.1. After that, I decided to jailbreak my iPod Touch.
Jailbreaking was interesting indeed. I wanted to jailbreak with Unlock Easy, but the software did not allow my version to jailbreak. I then turned to Redmond Pie and the site’s Redsn0w jailbreak update. It only took a few clicks to jailbreak my iPod Touch. Immediately, when the device rebooted, I saw Cydia on my desktop. I clicked over to Cydia, set up my Amazon payment account, and started purchasing and installing packages.
One question that people often ask jailbreakers is, “So what have you been able to download onto your device?” Here is what I have downloaded so far:
- Galaxy S II theme
- Galaxy S III theme
- Google Nexus 7 theme
- David Beckham LA Galaxy theme
- Metroon Windows 8 theme
- HTC Evo 4G theme
- High-Tech Rave (Custom) theme
- Galaxy Nexus theme
To prove I did it, I submit the following photos:
As you can see, I have been able to experiment rather nicely with my jailbroken device. One of the downloads I recommend you do after you jailbreak is called “Motion.” It turns your icons into a rotating, flipping, jumping, and disappearing act—all into one! I sat in my chair amazed at how much the icons could move and groove with the motion feature activated.
If you want to know about the process, it is effortless and quick. The fun begins after you see the Cydia icon on your home screen. For me, however, it has been an incredible journey into the jailbreaking world. While perusing the Cydia store (SAURIK), I have noticed a number of things that Apple has stolen from the jailbreaking community. One of the features of iOS6 that belongs to Cydia (apart from the Notification Center) is Siri’s upgrades. If you click on the Cydia icon, then “addons (Siri),” you can see that the numerous changes Siri undergoes in iOS6 are there because of jailbreakers. Here are some of the Siri addons you will notice in an iPhone 4s jailbreak:
- “Siri weather from Bureau of meteorology”
- “Siri will tell some random facts”
- “Ask Siri to tell you random jokes”
- “Siri shows cute images, animals, etc.”
- “enable Siri search in non-US countries”
- “translate using Siri; over 35 languages”
- “access sports scores from Siri” (SiriSports)
Do you notice something about the last Siri addon mentioned? Evan Coleman is the jailbreak developer who is to be credited with Siri providing sports information. Instead, Apple has claimed that the company has tweaked Siri so that she has learned how to pull up sports scores. Apple gives no credit to Evan Coleman, but steals his technology and uses it for its own iOS6 platform. Unfortunately, this has been Apple’s track record these days. The company has no shame when it comes to infringement, but would rather go to court and make everyone else follow the rules. Is this not wrong in some sense?
My jailbreaking experience was a true joy. I have been tweaking my themes and applications for the last day, and cannot get enough of the countless options available to me—now that my iPod Touch is free from Apple’s control. I can only hope that you will buckle down and travel to the “dark side”—though I can say that the jailbreak community is no dark side at all.
To find out more about jailbreaking, go to our site, http://www.ijailbreak3gs.com/ for more details.
In the last post, I discussed the cases of the Samsung injunctions as well as Apple’s heated relationship with Italy’s Antitrust Authority. As I said there, Apple’s attempts to undermine Italy’s free two-year warranty on products and goods sold within the country while “hyping” the company’s AppleCare Protection Plan indicate a state of rebellion and a stubborn mind that will not yield to Italy state law. This does not bode well for a company that makes great products. Apple may be consumed with its entrance into China (as this week’s iTunes travel to Asia reveals—CNET), but it will lose any foothold it has in Italy if the company does not settle down and abide by the rules. No matter how much money a company makes, honesty is always the best policy.
Next on the list of lawsuits against the Cupertino, California company is Noise Free Wireless, a noise cancellation company in the heart of the Silicon Valley. Founded in 2005, Noise Free is known for its developments in sound technology and its efforts to reduce the amount of noise an individual hears around them. Our ears can only contain so many decibels of noise, and Noise Free has a mission: to reduce the noise intake, thereby contributing to human relaxation and calm. According to Noise Free, Apple stole its technology on noise cancellation, had two Apple engineers patent Noise Free’s work, and sold it to Noise Free’s competitor, Audience. The scandal did not stop there: once Apple sold Noise Free’s hard work to Audience, Apple purchased the technology from Audience instead of Noise Free—the rightful owner of the technology and the company that deserved the patent.
There are many who would rather not give a vote for either Noise Free or Apple in terms of guilt or innocence, but it seems plausible to me that Apple could be guilty of this. After all, Apple has not had the best track record with honoring the original ideas of its own developers or jailbreakers. The only benefit jailbreakers have ever held for the company is the use of their applications in Apple’s updated iOS platform—taking away the credit and acknowledgement that rightly belongs to jailbreak developers. I have stated in an earlier post that Apple has stolen from the jailbreaking community before—not once, or twice, but several times.Greg Hughes was one whose “WifiSync” app, designed explicitly for Apple, was told that it did not qualify because of “security reasons”; the company later turned around and claimed itself as the creator of the new app (while Greg Hughes watched the WWDC announcement in shock from a television in the United Kingdom). The Notification Center, part of iOS6, belonged to the jailbreaking community. Siri was never Apple’s creation; instead, the company purchased Siri from an earlier owner. Meanwhile, the jailbreaking community always had a voice activation app to call its own.
If Apple’s copyright thefts from individual developers are bad enough, the company’s infringement on the copyrights of other companies in China makes it worse! In another post I wrote some days ago, I emphasized Apple’s infringement upon the copyrights of two Chinese companies, Shenzhen Proview and Jiangsu Xuebao. Apple did not own the iPad name in 2009 when it started selling its tablets, but the company knew this because it could not win the name over in 2008. When you factor in the attempt to acquire the name by creating an artificial British company, Apple becomes more and more guilty with every word. Apple did not check into Jiangsu Xuebao’s copyright patent over the name “Snow Leopard” before it put out its own Mac OS software. Some could label this as “intellectual laziness,” but keep in mind that Jiangsu also manufactures and sells touchscreens. Coincidence? I think not.
If Apple has stolen from its own developers, jailbreak developers, and companies like the Chinese companies discussed here, why would the company not steal from a fellow company located in the Silicon Valley? Why would Noise Free be any different in Apple’s eyes than a developer or a community full of talented jailbreakers?
Many years ago, my mom and sister were taking a trip back home from the local Walmart, where they purchased some food and necessities. On the way back from the journey, as they passed by our old elementary school (Danielle and I were college students at the time), Danielle and mom got into a heated discussion about a family friend that they knew—a girl who was lying to her parents about her whereabouts, although she was getting into all sorts of trouble. Mom said to Danielle, “If she [the girl in question] will lie to her parents, she will lie on a test, cheat on her finals, betray her friends, and eventually, cheat on her husband.” My sister was outraged. “How fair is it to say that, just because she has done some bad things?” Mom, at the wheel, spoke so softly, though her words were as clear as a trumpet: “While it cannot be said that the girl will necessarily do those things, there is a strong certainty that she will.”
This principle applies with Apple: although the company can claim innocence in this situation, there are so many notorious actions as of late from the company that Noise Free’s claim seems extremely plausible. And if a company will steal from aspiring developers such as Greg Hughes, individuals that it knows are helpless in copyright patents and protection, who can say that the company will stop there? Why not make a young, aspiring company like Noise Free its new target?
More iPhone 4 jailbreak news is coming your way. Stay tuned.
No comments:
Post a Comment