Top 3 Programs to Jailbreak iPhone 4/4S

by admin on May 15, 2012


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.

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: