TheMightyEthan Posted July 12, 2013 Report Share Posted July 12, 2013 But Apple's TOS is not the be all and end all of what is legal for them to do. There are restrictions, no matter what the TOS says. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted July 12, 2013 Report Share Posted July 12, 2013 Right, but given you have to agree to it to use iOS and the iTunes app store, it is within Apples reasonable assumption to make that you're not using a Jailbroken device, because you gave them your word you're not, so why should they have to make provisions for those that are lying to them and actually are using a jailbroken device to buy apps? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted July 12, 2013 Report Share Posted July 12, 2013 Because they know that people do use jailbroken devices on the store. To take a more extreme example, I'm pretty sure Apple could not get away with intentionally releasing an app that would brick any jailbroken phone it was installed on, no matter what their TOS says. Again, just because their TOS says something does not mean it's true, and, as I keep saying, there's a big (and I believe legally significant) difference between simply not guaranteeing that something will work on a jailbroken phone and actually making the thing not work without warning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Jack Posted July 12, 2013 Report Share Posted July 12, 2013 Gotta side with Ethan on this one. It was really shitty to take people's money without warning them that they would be getting essentially nothing in return. Whether jailbroken devices are frowned on or not, those people should be entitled to refunds. Also, what business is it of Square's if I use a jailbroken device? I could understand an official Apple app doing something like this, but Square? Why should they give a shit? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faiblesse Des Sens Posted July 12, 2013 Report Share Posted July 12, 2013 Right, but given you have to agree to it to use iOS and the iTunes app store, it is within Apples reasonable assumption to make that you're not using a Jailbroken device, because you gave them your word you're not, so why should they have to make provisions for those that are lying to them and actually are using a jailbroken device to buy apps? No provisions need to be made. Why would you think that their needs to be any? When you root an Android phone everything works just fine. Hell, the only warning I've ever seen is about Google Wallet and that since I'm rooted they wouldn't offer support. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted July 12, 2013 Report Share Posted July 12, 2013 @TME: Many people do many things they're not meant to, doesn't mean they should all be accommodated for. Bricking a device would be destruction of property, so yeah pretty clear "don't do that". They would however be more than likely within their rights to make it so that no Apple apps were to run on the device at all. As it stands with Android the Google Apps you have to kinda hack (not much to it tbh) into your phone if you've a custom ROM. @MJ: Yeah it's a dick move, that's the part we all agree on. Whether Apple is obligated to give refunds for folks using the iTunes store to buy apps that aren't guaranteed to work is the matter that's of contention. As for the why, as mentioned early on, more than likely just because 99.99% of iOS pirates are to be found on jailbroken devices. And Eidos will more than likely want to deter pirates from playing their games. It just fucked up. @FDS: Ask Ethan that one, he's the one saying that provisions should be made to mark all apps as not running on Jailbroken devices, I'm the one saying that such a clause is basically written into the TOS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faiblesse Des Sens Posted July 12, 2013 Report Share Posted July 12, 2013 @FDS: Ask Ethan that one, he's the one saying that provisions should be made to mark all apps as not running on Jailbroken devices, I'm the one saying that such a clause is basically written into the TOS. But the only reason they don't run is because someone had to code them not to run on jailbroken devices. Which is why this is being discussed in the DRM thread. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted July 12, 2013 Report Share Posted July 12, 2013 Well yes, but the expectation would be for no app to run fine on a jailbroken device. edit: http://ht.ly/mV2gh it's getting removed. Given the "legitimate customers", yeah it was an anti-piracy measure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faiblesse Des Sens Posted July 12, 2013 Report Share Posted July 12, 2013 but the expectation would be for no app to run fine on a jailbroken device. This is incredibly incorrect and I don't know where you even pulled that from. Every app would run exactly the same since all "jailbroken" means is root access. It's not a different OS, version of the OS, or a different kernel. It doesn't mean you've changed anything other than permissions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Jack Posted July 12, 2013 Report Share Posted July 12, 2013 It didn't even make sense as a piracy measure so good riddance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted July 12, 2013 Report Share Posted July 12, 2013 (edited) @Dean: That is NOT the expectation, unless that is the norm. Atm the norm is that things work fine. As I have said IN EVERY POST I'VE MADE IN THIS THREAD SO FAR: if the game just doesn't work because of a bug or something on jailbroken devices then yeah, you're SOL. But in this case THEY SPECIFICALLY WENT OUT OF THEIR WAY TO MAKE IT NOT WORK. I'm not saying they have to mark every app that may or may not work, I'm saying they need to mark it IF THEY SPECIFICALLY DESIGN IT NOT TO WORK. ffs you love straw man arguments. Edited July 12, 2013 by TheMightyEthan edited to make clear who I'm replying to Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faiblesse Des Sens Posted July 12, 2013 Report Share Posted July 12, 2013 That is NOT the expectation, unless that is the norm. Atm the norm is that things work fine. Things work exactly the same when you jailbreak your device. You can jailbreak and not change anything or install anything that needs jailbreak. I'm not saying they have to mark every app that may or may not work, I'm saying they need to mark it IF THEY SPECIFICALLY DESIGN IT NOT TO WORK. Agreed. But that's not what we're discussing. This goes back your "The particular subset of users aren't meant to be using iOS, let alone the iTunes app store, though" quote which is inherently wrong as you're just not very informed about jailbroken devices. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted July 12, 2013 Report Share Posted July 12, 2013 Are you getting me and dean confused? Because I'm agreeing with you. I was responding to dean, but you and Jack got in between dean's post and mine (for some reason the forum didn't tell me that had happened). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Jack Posted July 12, 2013 Report Share Posted July 12, 2013 I'm like Mr. Roper over here, just poking my head in the door to see what's up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted July 12, 2013 Report Share Posted July 12, 2013 @FDS: Yeah I know what jailbreaking does and allows for. It's still against their TOS. Therefore there is no expectation for Apple to cater for you, to provide support, or guarantee their services and software will fully work with your device. @MJ: Eh, it's a lazy mans route. Likely easy enough to check the elevation status of the user than it is to implement something to detect if the app is cracked or not. @TME: Yes I agree with you it is a dick move for them to put in the jailbreak = no guns thing. However there's nothing saying they have to specifically mark it as such, and Apple doesn't have to provide people with refunds that are using their app store service and breaking the TOS. My copy of Arkham Asylum that if I crack the executable then Batman's cape will no longer work rendering functions of the game inoperable, doesn't include any such notice despite being out for 3 years. And yeah I think FDS is in one of his "must disagree with everyone even if they're on separate sides" kind of moods today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted July 12, 2013 Report Share Posted July 12, 2013 Okay, but you keep saying shit like "no expectation for Apple to cater for you, to provide support, or guarantee their services and software will fully work with your device". We're not talking about Apple catering to them, or guaranteeing anything will work. Why do you keep insisting we are? And what are you even talking about with "there's nothing saying they have to specifically mark it as such"? I'm saying that I believe that fucking consumer protection advertising laws might require that. So yes, there is something. You can't go advertising saying "this will work with all X products" when you know for a fact it won't and in fact designed it not to. They said it's compatible with certain models of phones, so if there's an exception to that they need to say what the exception is. Your comparison to Batman is just completely asinine. The only expectation is that the game as sold will work, but you are modifying the game. The only expectation is that the game code they provide you will work on the systems they say it will work on. In the case of this game they said it will work on certain phones WHEN IT WILL NOT. They lied. That is an entirely different situation. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted July 12, 2013 Report Share Posted July 12, 2013 I also want to be extra super clear that I do not think Apple is in any way obligated to ensure that things work on jailbroken devices, I'm only talking about situations where the thing is specifically designed not to work on them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted July 12, 2013 Report Share Posted July 12, 2013 We're not talking about Apple catering to them, or guaranteeing anything will work. Why do you keep insisting we are? You can't go advertising saying "this will work with all X products" when you know for a fact it won't and in fact designed it not to. They said it's compatible with certain models of phones, so if there's an exception to that they need to say what the exception is. Because you carry on saying that. You also said at the start about wanting a refund. And saying there needs to be an exception written in the list of supported devices specifically sating that jailbroken devices don't work. When Apple don't cater for jailbroken devices anyway. As far as a anti-piracy technique it's much the same idea though by disabling an in-game feature. The Deus Ex game as sold actually does work*, it runs and all that stuff, you just can't fire your gun, much in the same way Batman works, you just can't jump the pass about halfway through the game. And it does work on the phones listed, none of the phones listed are jailbroken devices, which are the devices it doesn't work on. *Which I'm to understand is enough to cover anti-consumer laws as I'm to understand. Mainly thinking back to ME3 and it not having the thousands of promised endings yet it being in the clear because hey at the end of the day it still runs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted July 12, 2013 Report Share Posted July 12, 2013 Requiring that their statements be true is not requiring that they cater to jailbroken device users. That's just advertising requirements. ME3 was never advertised as having thousands of endings, it was advertised as your decisions affecting the outcome. They do. Just not as much as people would have liked. And it does work on the phones listed, none of the phones listed are jailbroken devices, which are the devices it doesn't work on. This might be the dumbest thing I've ever seen you say. An iPhone 5 is an iPhone 5, regardless of if it's jailbroken. So if it says it's compatible with iPhone 5 that covers the jailbroken ones unless they specify otherwise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faiblesse Des Sens Posted July 12, 2013 Report Share Posted July 12, 2013 Requiring that their statements be true is not requiring that they cater to jailbroken device users. That's just advertising requirements. ME3 was never advertised as having thousands of endings, it was advertised as your decisions affecting the outcome. They do. Just not as much as people would have liked. And it does work on the phones listed, none of the phones listed are jailbroken devices, which are the devices it doesn't work on. This might be the dumbest thing I've ever seen you say. An iPhone 5 is an iPhone 5, regardless of if it's jailbroken. So if it says it's compatible with iPhone 5 that covers the jailbroken ones unless they specify otherwise. This is exactly why I gave the example of my Nexus 4. I run the exact same version of the operating system but I have root level privileges. Everything works. My phone didn't magically get different specs. All that I've ever seen is one app where they say they won't offer support. It's the same phone running the same OS. There is zero reason to believe that just because it's jailbroken something won't work. We're going in circles now. I already pointed out that developers literally have to program in something to not make it work on jailbroken devices. They have to intentionally do it. If you just develop your app like normal it works. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted July 13, 2013 Report Share Posted July 13, 2013 If you're having to specifically state "this app will not work fully on jailbroken devices" that's catering to jailbroken devices. And ME3 was advertised as having lots of endings, it's why the RGB endings became quite a big deal. They specify otherwise in the TOS for the store. I'm not sure how many times that has to be said. Apple operate a walled garden, they put up rules and such, and one of those rules is in order to make use of thier software and services you don't jailbreak your device. iTunes App store is one of their services. The law to my understanding says Apple cannot stop you from jailbreaking your device, you're free to modify your own device as you see fit. The law however doesn't say they must accommodate for you, it is still their service, with their terms as they see fit. Therefore they are under no obligation to check and notify in their listings, that the apps put forward for testing not only work on devices sold as-is, but also on devices modified by the end user. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted July 13, 2013 Report Share Posted July 13, 2013 Therefore they are under no obligation to check and notify in their listings, that the apps put forward for testing not only work on devices sold as-is, but also on devices modified by the end user. No one's saying they have to check whether they work or not, we're only saying that in the case of things that are specifically designed not to work they need to say something. Again, I disagree with what you believe their rights are. If they make an affirmative statement, such as "this works on X devices" then if they know that statement to have caveats they have to include those caveats. I don't understand why you can't get that through your skull. That's not catering to anything, that's requiring them to be truthful. Anyway, I'm done. You clearly don't care what we're actually saying, you just want to argue with your fantasy version of what we're saying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted July 13, 2013 Report Share Posted July 13, 2013 Except Apples testing system is highly unlikely to include jailbroken devices, so how are Apple to know how an app will act on jailbroken devices? And the caveat of jailbroken devices is already included in the TOS, which encompasses the whole store, meaning no need to individually post on app store listings that jailbroken devices aren't supported. Kind of like how such a suggestion that a jailbroken device is required is likely not something pasted on all the Cydia store apps. How'd you think it feels over here when it seems like the "I am a lawyer" card you pulled earlier (and weakened stance on since too) seems to encompass a blind spot for the words "TOS" and "EULA", because you've not really once acknowledged that their TOS precludes the requirement of jailbroken device support. As best I understand it we all agree it was a badly handled anti-piracy attempt by Eidos. One they're going to revert. And as best I understand it we all agree that the law means jailbreaking is perfectly legal. It seems the only disagreement is if there should be catering by Apple to support jailbroken devices through their app store. If I was the kind of guy that was fine with a single store, and that single store being through the guys that make the OS and the hardware, and all that that entails in the control side of things, I wouldn't be on my second Android phone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faiblesse Des Sens Posted July 13, 2013 Report Share Posted July 13, 2013 If you're having to specifically state "this app will not work fully on jailbroken devices" that's catering to jailbroken devices. It only doesn't work because they programmed specifically not to work. I don't get what you're not grasping there. They did it on purpose. It's not a bug that the game displays a message that disables your guns, tells you that it's disabling your guns, and then mentions that it's because you're jailbroken. so how are Apple to know how an app will act on jailbroken devices? It acts exactly the fucking same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted July 13, 2013 Report Share Posted July 13, 2013 I know they did it on purpose. My very first post on this topic was "oh this must be an anti-piracy measure", and their post on the matter all but confirmed it. (Which disregarding the jailbroken stuff there's certainly nothing obligating devs to cater to pirates and point out what anti-piracy measures they've implemented.) so how are Apple to know how an app will act on jailbroken devices? It acts exactly the fucking same. It clearly doesn't Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.