Apple Inc. is credited with developing various high-tech devices used for various purposes across the world. The iPhone and iPad are some of the recognizable devices that set Apple Inc. apart in its respective market. The iPhone is a type of smartphone developed by the organization and includes a combination of a cellular phone, a computer, a digital camera, and an iPod in a single device designed with a touchscreen interface. It has the IOS as its operating system and has more than two million applications available on the app store for its users. Some of the iPhone basic features include access to cellular networks using GSM (global system for mobile communication) and SIM (subscriber identity module). It also consists of the EDGE (enhanced data GSM environment) feature for high-speed data transfer, Bluetooth connectivity, automatic detection of WI-FI and much more.
The iPad, on the other hand, is a tablet computer developed by the same company which also runs on IOS as its operating system, has enabled Bluetooth connectivity and WI-FI detection. These two represent different devices produced by the same organization, and some of the differences include the ability to make calls over a cellular network using the iPhone, a characteristic absent in the iPad. The iPhone is a mobile phone while the iPad is a tablet computer. The iPad can run applications programmed for both devices while the iPhone can only run iPhone apps. These two devices run on the IOS operating system developed by Apple and limited only to Apple devices. It means that the company has put in place software restrictions for the IOS making it difficult for users to install applications that are not available on the Apple app store (Wolk, 2010). However, technological advancement means that technical gurus have developed the ability to bypass these restrictions in a process known as jailbreaking. As a company with the most restricted devices, many individuals target IOS devices to allow users the freedom to assessing and installing banned apps. As is evident, jailbreaking presents a viable business opportunity for an individual who would have not reservations venturing into it.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Apple is aware of the risks associated with the type of restricted devices it develops which necessitated the company to establish protections for the devices. It applies code signing which is a form of protection classified as a technological protection measure (TPM) to prevent unauthorized use of banned apps on Apple devices (Wolk, 2010). For instance, the organization uses the TPM known as FairPlay to regulate audio files its users can access on its music players. Apart from this single TPM, the organization applies layers of other TPMs to ensure uncontrolled protection of its devices. The company uses code signing and encryption as some of its main protection techniques. Code signing applies a mathematical technique to make sure that Apple only distributed the apps being used by Apple users and that they have not been modified in any way. Encryption involves the organization storing its software in encrypted forms which makes them impossible to use until they are decrypted (Wolk, 2010). Such restrictions make it almost impossible for individuals to use banned apps on Apple devices. Nonetheless, many have identified how they can defeat TPMs and run non-Apple approved applications. It then provides the opportunity for jailbreaking which has been on the rise over the years due to technological advances.
As a business venture, Apple Crack Inc. has a viable business opportunity in the provision of IOS jailbreaking services. However, the practice is governed by legal underpinnings that determine how possible or impossible it is for one to engage. First, jailbreaking and privacy practices have often been controlled by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) developed by the Congress in 1998 which contains anti-circumvention provisions that make it illegal for one to bypass restrictions set in place to protect content with copyrights (Congress, 1998). The act also bans the trafficking of products that are applied in circumventing TPM developed for protection by companies such as Apple. Criticisms have come up against the DMCA for going the extent of banning innocent digital practices. Therefore the Congress developed exemptions in its previous dictations, and these include the jailbreaking exemption that provides for activities that can be applied in jailbreaking IOS devices to allow the running of unauthorized applications on Apple devices (Wolk, 2010). As it stands, the DCMA has removed any restrictions that were previously set on jailbreaking practices that can be applied to IOS devices meaning that the practice is legal.
As a legal practice, Roy Thompson is in a legal position of engaging in such a business, and the continued need for such services by Apple user means that such an enterprise would be successful. Even as jailbreaking is legal for smartphones and tablets, the restrictions directed to the practice have gone through a series of exemptions initiated by the United States Library of Congress. The library Congress often meets every thirty-six months to discuss these exemptions lifting those that have attracted immense complaints from the public. The jailbreaking exemption has gone through numerous modifications over the years with restrictions making it illegal to jailbreak smartphone and tablets at some point and these restrictions being lifted at another point. However, exemptions made to DCMA’s 1201 section in 2018 allow for jailbreaking practices under the right to repair. It provides for jailbreaking to enable the repair of devices such as smartphones, tablets, smart TVs and much more by making circumvention necessary. It means that individuals and organizations are allowed to engage in jailbreaking of IOS devices and others for repair purposes or the sharing of banned apps on Apple devices.
It is an indication that jailbreaking may have been illegal a few times in the past, but the practice has been made legal by the exemptions that were allowed by the DCMA in 2018. Apple Crack Inc. is at the liberty of engaging in such a venture as the law allows it. As identified, such exemptions only last for three years as the Library of Congress meets after every thirty-six months to revise any exemption it feels does not suffice anymore. It means that the organization will have three years of sure business as they await the decision of the Congress on the jailbreaking exemption by the DCMA which may work for or against the success of the organization.
Another disadvantage of starting such a venture is the warnings provided by Apple against jailbreaking for its devices. Apple cautions that jailbreaking practices on the iPhone and iPad may result in the violation of the warranty and cause these devices to become unstable and not work as expected. Further, the organization believes that such practices open up the leeway for legal and international hackers to tamper with devices that have been jailbroken and could result in instances of cyber-crime and cyber insecurity. Therefore, Apple Crack Inc. should be prepared for the various oppositions that will come from the Apple Company and the possible repercussions likely to be encountered by Apple Crack Inc. customers. Such a case is evident in a recent case between Apple and a few of its customers ( Grace v. APPLE, INC) . It is necessary that Thompson develops possible solutions to such an issue beforehand to ensure that the company can handle them smoothly when they come up in the future.
References
Congress, U. S. (1998). Digital millennium copyright act. Public Law , 105 (304), 112.
Grace v. APPLE, INC. , No. 17-CV-00551-LHK (N.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2018).
Wolk, M. H. (2010). The iPhone Jailbreaking Exemption and the Issue of Openness. Cornell JL & Pub. Pol'y , 19 , 795.
