Comments on: To Hack a Smartphone or Not to Hack?

By: TimJDav86

TimJDav86 — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 21:16:05 +0000

If I want to hack my Phone, that’s my business. I paid for the device, and for the line of code the OS is written in. If I want to alter it for my own means, that’s my right, and no fine print can tell me other wise.

It becomes a issue when others are distributing software the OEM’s or other companys sell/make available for a cost or fee.

For instance, my Stock rom on a WM device did not come with Tom Tom pre-installed, and I get a Rom with it installed for free. Tom Tom is a program you otherwise have to pay for, so getting it for free IS steeling.

But lets say I get a Hacked rom that simply runs more “smoothly” has freeware programs installed, and has more customization feature added to it( once again not a chargable feature from some other company or OEM)
That should be ok.

Just like if I want to Jail-Break my Iphone to make it work with other freeware applications it would other wise not be able to use. Or even paid versions from companies apple has not supported. Apple got their money from me for the device/os, I’m not steeling from them, nor from these other companies because the software I am putting on my jail borken Iphone is already made available for free, or I am paying those third party companies for the use of it on my jail-broken Iphone.

By: Ben M

Ben M — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 19:43:19 +0000

I am definitely on the same page as Benjamin. Just unlocking most phones is a violation of contract and give the carriers the right to terminate your contract. Thats just a simple fact.

As far as stealing software!? Every site I use is very strict on unlicensed software, they flat out do not allow it. Since most of the software and operating systems we use are beta, therefore available for testing, they are not the final licensable product. Look at the Windows 7 RC1 how many people are using that? It is a free licensed product, right now, available for the masses to test.

Also stating: you unlocked your phone to use prepaid sim cards for abroad, which I am taking a guess are not from ATT. So if you want to look at it that way, yes you are taking theoretic money away from them.

By: Ben M

Ben M — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 19:34:39 +0000

Ya that may be what I saw, but I thought, which definitely could be wrong that the whole front of the touch pro supported multi touch. http://www.engadget.com/2008/08/20/htcs-touch-diamond-pro-are-multi-touch-gods-just-not-how-you/ So ya I guess it is just the track area.

By: Benjamin Ries

Benjamin Ries — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 16:36:57 +0000

With respect Oliver, the problem with your analogy is that it employs ‘natural law’ fallacies to imply that the contours of intellectual property are as simple and obvious as the contours of physical property.

Kids learn from an early age that physical objects can be owned and controlled (and therefore, stolen); in a sense this gives rise to a natural definition of “steal” that might be prior to the law of theft.

But intellectual property – who owns and controls ideas – is artificially created by the law, apparently to promote innovation through competition. Exceptions like “fair use” are created by the law to promote innovation through freedom. It isn’t intuitive that certain uses of certain ideas are like stealing the rims from someone else’s car, while other uses of ideas are as harmless as an unauthorized paint.

JK’s perspective is correct: both jailbreaking and porting unlicensed interfaces are examples of EULA violations, and their legal and ethical ramifications are similar. If you think that only one is “stealing” because of some difference in deprivation, think again: HTC’s fiscal loss from unlicensed use of the Hero UI is primarily theoretical (allegedly decreasing sales of the Hero device by reducing its competitive uniqueness vis-a-vis hacked Android phones) and so is Apple’s from jailbreaking (allegedly decreasing future app sales and licensing by giving users an alternative route to increasing device functionality).

By: w

Sun, 28 Jun 2009 13:59:22 +0000

As the HTC Hero is based on Android, which is open source is the HTC surface not propably also open source?

By: eTomm

eTomm — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 07:42:28 +0000

Touch Pro screen is just a normal resistive touch screen, no multitouch there. But the hardware buttons part of diamond is multitouch.

For the rest i agree with you. :P

By: serwei

serwei — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 04:02:24 +0000

If not for XDA-dev, there would be a much smaller market of WinMo phones. Critical things like OS updates are only given to enthusiastic vendors and/or new models. If MS had treated WinCE like Windows, it would have been way ahead instead of succumbing to what vendors were too lazy to do, and HTC took up most of the slack.

BTW, breaking your licence or stealing software, it’s either all or nothing, since both are legally “there”, so I agree with JK’s view.

By: bluespapa

bluespapa — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 02:14:08 +0000

So much of this seems quite fluid, especially when an OEM uses a core of open source software. They are counting on both people obeying their mandates, and developers taking advantage of capabilities they don’t care to invest in developing themselves. It’s infuriating to know your phone (or computer or whatever) has a capability you’d enjoy, but are locked out of by service provider unwilling to develop it.

I suspect the legal situation, however, is less fluid than the facts on the ground, though corporations will have to be wary of their own creation of bad customer relations.

By: Brutus Beefcake

Brutus Beefcake — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 00:31:52 +0000

If i purchase a piece of hardware i should be able to load any software me wants onto it, including tethering. It sounds like the average Joe Consumer needs a bill of rights before we get stomped on by the telcos.

By: Bill

Bill — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 23:27:42 +0000

If you buy and pay for an entire car; including engine, radio, seats, window glass etc. then you should be able to use every item. Some Phone companies would sell you this "entire" car, but disable to radio, unless you pay $10 a month to enable (something you have already paid for) it for use, charge you extra for the 4th tire, and shut down your engine after exceeding your alloted mileage.... :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::; Also, to compare to some computer programs. You have bought the car, but you cannot loan it to a friend, nor are you allowed to resell it, or return it if it doesn't live up to it's advertised specs """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" As far as the tires, you have taken something that has been already physically manufactured, where as using a pirated copy of software,(while illegal) you have not physically deprived the manufacturer of something physically manufactured(minus cost of .04 plastic disc...... OTHER ........than his development costs, advertising and promotion, payroll, equipment, and time invested to make the program..... Hmmmmm ......maybe th pirate did deprive the software developer something