Talk:IOS jailbreaking/Archive 1

Untitled
Editors/admin New info about jailbreak: blackra1n has been revealed http://iphonejtag.blogspot.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forgotten44 (talk • contribs) 05:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

QuickFreedom
Why is this included? If we include this we might as well include all programs capable of jailbreak, of which there are hundreds. Isn't it easier to stick to iPhone Dev Team methods in this article, or just make a comparison page and move this off completely? arienh4(Talk) 15:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

First of all, the dev team aren't the be all and end all of jailbreaking. Most notably purplera1n, the 3GS jailbreak is not a dev team jailbreak. Secondly, at the start of iPod 2G jailbreaking, QuickFreedom was the program most people actually used. 84.203.233.253 (talk) 00:26, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * They may not be, but all of their claims are backed by sources. Source up some Endgadget, etc. about other programs, and it will stay in the article. hbdragon88 (talk) 02:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Unsourced but factually correct note: QuickFreedom was just a GUI combining xpwn, the Dev Team's open source suite of jailbreak related utilities with iPod touch specific patches provided by the iPhone Dev Team based on instructions given by an iPhone Dev Team member. The only thing it added was a bit of batch automation I'm afraid. Purplera1n, one of the two jailbreaking tools for 3gs, indeed was not created by the group, but they have their own solution for 3gs. --71.236.164.204 (talk) 10:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Notability criteria for including in Software Used
"Quick Freedom" is just a GUI wrapper for xpwn along with patches provided by the dev team. Other tools also take xpwn and package it with those same patches to make similar tools with varying degrees of popularity and ease-of-use: redtool, unofficialsn0w, and some others. This class of jailbreaks are all very similar and a decision should be made whether to include all of them or to include none of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.236.164.204 (talk) 02:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

greenp0ison
I've tagged greenp0ison for clarification as, whilst it can be assumed it is a piece of jailbreaking software, the article does little to expand upon what it is, what model of iPhone/iPod or what version of the OS it will target. Alex J Fox (Talk) (Contribs) 21:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Greenpois0n, a jailbreak program not unlike PwnageTool is currently in development, but is been held back so that Apple can't patch the exploit used before the iPhone 4G. Greenpois0n uses a different type of jailbreak than any other program before it, so it should be in business for some time before Apple patches the exploit up.

This seems a little "oh yay sucks for apple" and really biased. can anyone un-biase [?] this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by FeralitYzERO (talk • contribs) 00:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

greenpoison and geohots 3.1 untethered jailbreaks did not release on 4/3 like it was stated on the jailbreak (iphone os) wikipedia page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.194.190 (talk) 21:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Please link George Hotz name to his page
Editsemiprotected Because there was no link I didn't think he had a page on wikipedia. Had to find it through google Done - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Blackra1n
One place on the wiki says Blackra1n can be used with 3.1.3 firmware. Another place says 3.1.2 only. Which is the correct one? My iPod is 1st gen.--NakiBest (talk) 17:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Geohot said he wasn't working on a jailbreak for 3.1.3, so I wouldn't try Blackra1n. I read that Dev Team said that Redsn0w 0.9.4 would let you jailbreak older devices, including iPod Touch 1g, running 3.1.3. Oh, and also Sn0wbreeze. --WikiDonn (talk) 06:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I used Redsn0w 0.9.4 and it jailbroke fine. NakiBest (talk) 20:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit request
Add information

LollerOfHell (talk) 14:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not a very useful description. --JokerXtreme (talk) 14:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)Could you be a little more specific, I'm not too sure what exactly you want added to the article. Feel free to restore the semiprotected tag after adding more detail. Thanks.  Set Sail   For The   Seven Seas   224° 54' 45" NET   14:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 95.244.166.229, 24 April 2010
Sorry, but ipod 3g models can't be downgraded unless you saved the ECID to cydia. But you can downgrade the current model with 8GB (MC model, but still 2g since it has the old iphone 3G similar hardware)

95.244.166.229 (talk) 19:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: per WP:Prod request. Spitfire 19 (Talk) 20:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Information Error
In the list of firmware, it says that " 3.1 - 3.1.2 iPhone 3GS (with iBoot-359.3.2) and iPod Touch 3rd generation - Tethered (Device must be re-jailbroken every time it is restarted.)". This is incorrect, as you don't need to re-jailbreak on these models. You just need to use blackra1n to boot your iDevice by connecting it to your computer, and clicking "make it ra1n" in the blackra1n PC/Mac interface. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bodman456 (talk • contribs) 03:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

True. There are many problems with the recently added parts to the history section. I will edit the section to correct as many of the errors as I can. --WikiDonn (talk) 03:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 84.72.16.29, 25 May 2010
- Georg Hotz, not Georg Hots (typo) - put a link on his name there too - downgrade 3.1.3 to 3.1.2 with shsh: mention that shsh backup was necessary *before Feb 2010* otherwise not possible

84.72.16.29 (talk) 19:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yellow check.svg Partly done: I will change the typo, please clarity exactly what you think what is should say for the other part. -- Matthew Glennon (T/C\D) 19:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: This is already the case? -- Matthew Glennon (T/C\D) 19:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 217.121.2.86, 5 June 2010
editsemiprotected

The spirit jailbreak is also for Linux. Please can you edit that?

Sources:

- http://www.spiritjb.com/

- http://github.com/posixninja/spirit-linux

217.121.2.86 (talk) 15:08, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Jailbreaking_for_iPhone_OS C T J F 8 3 pride 17:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Ipod touch 3g 8GB?
why is there an ipod touch 3g 8gb in the device list when it is not available as the current ipod touch 3g line up only consists of 32/64gb models. the current ipod touch 8gb is the 2nd generation as it is to be sold alongside the 3g models Mikyt90 (talk) 13:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * beacuuse you can jailbreak it i jailbroke my 3g 8gb duhhh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.235.84.149 (talk) 14:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And still you can buy an 3G with 8GB. Maybee because there is no official 3G. Even the 32GB Models are 2G if you wanna go that way. --95.88.227.44 (talk) 07:51, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no 3G 8GB you probably have one of the newer second generation 8gb MC models. Apple released those with iOS3 even though they have the same hardware as the iPod Touch 2g. --Matthew Bauer (talk) 17:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Merge proposal
I propose we merge iPhone Dev Team into this article. Realistically speaking, once you cut out all the unsourced and trivial info (the list of devs, too-detailed prose on what version jailbreaks what and what exploit it uses in order to do it), the resulting article is nearly a copy of this article. I would suggest a small paragraph about the iPhone Dev Team but everything that the separate article does, this article does better. hbdragon88 (talk) 23:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Merging the iPhone Dev Team with the main jailbreaking page would almost be like crediting jailbreaking solely to them. They definitely are a leader in jailbreaking iPhones but aren't synonymous with jailbreaking.(talk) 23:38, 6 July 2009 (PCT)


 * No merge. I agree with Veda13; the iPhone Dev Team isn't the only group. 69.232.197.130 (talk) 01:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No Merge. There are many other groups and idviduals that create jailbreaks Fosterec (talk) 02:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Spirit Jailbreak
We need a section for Spirit... if anyone can make one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.247.70.160 (talk) 20:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Done Fosterec (talk) 02:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Chonic Dev Team OR Chronic Dev Team?
On April 4, 2010 the day after the iPad Wi-Fi model was released, the Chonic Dev Team tweeted a picture of their iPad jailbroken.

Chonic Dev Team OR Chronic Dev Team ?

89.138.74.85 (talk) 19:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Chronic Dev Team Fosterec (talk) 02:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Is the term 'jailbreak' only applicable for iPhones?
no it is branched out among many other mobile/electronic gaming devices but most users of jail-broken ipods consider "jailbreaking" exclusively an ipod touch/phone term —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thesarte (talk • contribs) 05:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.217.96 (talk) 14:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe so because for all other mobile devices, its unlocking. Im guessing its because with normal phones you can add software and stuff to it, where with an iPhone, you cant S ophie  ( Talk ) 14:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Not exclusive to iPhones, but iDevices, yes. I don't consider this authoritative, but I have not heard "jailbreak" used in reference to any other electronic devices, whether it be game consoles, wireless routers, or other smartphones, all of which may have their firmware modified using an exploit in such a way so as to run code not originally intended for a device. The equivalent of "jailbreaking" for Droid users is "rooting," and in the other cases, it's modding or hacking. Also, S ophie ,"unlocking" is a seperate process from jailbreaking, as it refers to SIM unlocking the phone, which can be done completely without exploits, and with a carrier's blessing. (A not-commonly known fact is that iPhones can be legitimately unlocked by the carrier, see: Apple's Offical iPhone 3g Unlock). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuranuk (talk • contribs) 03:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Legality
I'd like this article to explain the legal status of jailbreaking in various jurisdictions. In some jurisdictions, I think it would probably constitute breach of contract. zazpot (talk) 13:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think it could really be a breach of contract; or at least they can't sue over it since I don't know how Apple would be able to prove any damages. --71.236.164.204 (talk) 08:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Apple has already made the argument that breaking a EULA is, in fact, breach of contract when they sued Psystar in 2009. However, the judge essentially ruled on a technicality, so it's still a grey area. Specifically, does the EULA constitute a valid contract in the first place? Of course, this is US-centric. I am unfamiliar with claims made along these lines outside the US. Kuranuk (talk) 03:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

As of the time this post is written, Jailbreaking an iPod is legal. Apple is striving to make jailbreaking illegal. Bgs022 Questions? Comments? 21:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That's actually not true, at least in the US. It would be more accurate to say that currently, jailbreaking is probably illegal, but the EFF is trying to make it legal.  IANAL, but I've added a little bit to the article detailing what appears to be the current status in the US (I'm not sure about other countries, though). in all reality jailbreaking is allowable to get normally bought apps and beable to download for free. -- Foogod (talk) 21:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The legal status of jailbreaking in the US is no longer unambiguous (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38413597/ns/technology_and_science-wireless/ and http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2010/07/26). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.28.232.124 (talk) 17:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for adding this. I didn't see it and actually went to edit the talk page with the intention of adding that. Does anyone know what the legal status looks like in the rest of the world?


 * It's your own hardware and you can do whatever you want with it, However Apple is claiming that jailbreak apps are modified versions of Apple's software=copyrights infringing, and Apple file this claim, but i think it's fair reverse engineering used in way that can't harm the company and thus legal, so unless legal authority say it's illegal ...it's 100% legal.    Zayani (talk • contribs) 09:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it probably depends from the specific country laws.--Dejudicibus (talk) 22:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In Germany, as long as there is no copyrighted code used, it would be completely legal. If it would use apple copyrighted code.. then it would just be illegal to distribute the jailbrake. The use still would be legal. And that no matter what apple would write in ther terms. Thats why no-cd cracks are legal to use in germany. Well as long as you really got a legal Copy of that Game. On the other hand its illegal to spread those no-cd cracks.--95.88.227.44 (talk) 07:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Tutorials?
Would it be against wikipedia policy to have jailbreak tutorials here? Just wondering. Children of the dragon (talk) 09:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I would suggest any tutorials be put into one is Wikipedia's Sister project, wikiHow, at www.wikihow.comSir Stupidity (talk) 10:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * See WP:NOTGUIDE. We don't do tutorials.--Atlan (talk) 13:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Twitter - a reliable source
The article cites twitter in several of its refs. Unless anyone objects I propose to delete all such refs in accordance with WP:RS and in particular WP:SPS which says that "...self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable.". Your thoughts / tweets? -- Timberframe (talk) 18:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Look a little carefully before deleting, there are a few cases where self-published sources are acceptable. WP:SELFPUB gives one class of exceptions. I saw one twitter source here that I don't know enough jailbraking to evaluate--it seemed to be the comment of a developer saying, roughly, "the name of the next revision of my software will be different than the last revision".  If that tweet unequestionably came from the lone developer on a project, e.g., the person making the naming decision, it'd certainly be enough to source the statement  "so-and-so says the next revision of the software will have a different name" as per SELFPUB.  --j &#9883; e deckertalk 20:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Joe, you're right, but you miss my point: I'm not talking about verifying that someone, hiding behind the anonymity of a twitter account, blog handle or URL, said what the article says he said; I'm looking at the numerous times in the "devices" and "software used" sections where these inherently unverifiable and unattributable tweets are cited to support claims about release dates, firware names, etc. The issue I have is that without a proven identity the tweeters cannot be shown to be primary, secondary or tertiary sources. This remains the case even where editors "in the know" are convinced that they know the source of the tweets and/or their connection with the subject - readers should not be expected to share inside knowledge in order to satisfy themselves that the sources offered for verification are reliable. -- Timberframe (talk) 20:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds as if you're right on-target, I know I don't know enough about the subject to give an opinion on the "facts" of the case, but given those, but your reasoning and policy arguments seem "straight down the middle" correct. I'd also consider the application of WP:NOTCRYSTAL to future releases. --j &#9883; e deckertalk 20:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Release date of the next Spirit Jailbreak
Comex says in his Twitter that: "FWIW, I am not planning on waiting for Sunday if it's ready before then; nor am I releasing on Sunday if it's not ready by then."

http://twitter.com/comex/status/19630816240

This means that it will be released around August 1st, although is is no specific release date.

Codenamepenryn (talk) 20:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Standards
Every day, there are alot of edits that change the way things are presented eg 'iPad (all models)' to 'iPad WiFi/3G'. There needs to be some consensus into the format because these edits are covering up possible vandalism and/or legitimate edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir Stupidity (talk • contribs) 23:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Cullin' like Cullen
Hi. I've gone through the article and sterilised it of unreliable sources and proseline. I've left some statistics to be cited, however. Sceptre (talk) 20:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Someone edit the article
iOS4 is fully JBable, all devices. it's a userland JB, go to jailbreakme.com or jailbreakme.modmyi.com to jailbreak. ==210.50.139.49 (talk) 00:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Got a reliable source? -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 07:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Conjugation
"Other jailbreaks include: 1.1.1 [1] brought the 1 step jailbreak, exploiting a tiff vulnerability in mobile safari, no computer required 1.1.2 upgrade from a "Octoprep'd" 1.1.1 jailbreak 1.1.3 multiple ways occurred,"

What on earth does this sentence mean?

jailbreak is a word, why in hell is everyone trying to conjugate it??

"jailbreak" - in this sense has been converted to a noun this sentence refers to "jailbreaks" plural noun followed by an enumeration of them including what vulnerability was used to effect the "jailbreak" fff
 * Signing so it eventually gets autoarchived. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 203.91.201.55, 3 August 2010
Jailbreak is releases for iPhone4

Kagopiee (talk) 09:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Please add The first jailbreak application for iPhone 4 and iOS 4.0, JailBreakMe 2.0, has been released. Also available via mobile Safari, the utility can jailbreak not only iPhone 4, but any iPhone running iOS 4.0.1 or below. It can also jailbreak any iPad running iOS 3.2.1 or below.


 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done See here for Jailbreak 2.0. Thanks, Stickee (talk)  09:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Caerus9, 7 August 2010
Here's a new entry that should be added to the iOS jailbreaking wiki. It details the latest windows based jailbreak from Sn0wbreeze. Surprised no-one has done it yet. I've cut and pasted the 'Sn0wbreeze 1.7' entry so I had the formatting correct, and modified the details to make it a Sn0wbreeze 1.8 Beta entry. You shouldn't have to re-format it at all. I am new to writing complex wiki entries though, so you might see an adjustment or 2 that needs to be made.


 * sn0wbreeze 1.8 Beta
 * July 16, 2010
 * Windows
 * iPhone 3GS (Old Boot-ROM) ,iPod Touch 2G ,3G
 * 4.1 Beta 1
 * iH8sn0w

Caerus9 (talk) 20:49, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Well that's the gist of it. Just thought i'd help update the wiki.

Brad.


 * Yes check.svg Done Welcome and Thanks! --Stickee (talk)  01:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

iOS 4.0.2 and 3.2.2
Dropped the newest Versions of iOS 4.0 for the iPad and iDevices and a summary of changes (or rather, change). I'm sure they'll be jailbroken here soon, but for now, we're back to square one (No PDF Exploit). I left the old bootrom 3GS Entry alone because I Do not have an old bootrom 3GS to test on. Vikedal (talk) 12:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

iPhone Warranty
Where exactly in the iPhone warranty documentation does it say that Jail-breaking can or may void your warranty? I suspect foul play by Apple here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.7.78.127 (talk) 16:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The Apple Terms and Conditions state that you must not modify the software on your phone I believe. However, since the US Congress has changed that, I'm not entirely sure anymore. I think Apple have still pretty much said the same thing in the Terms and Conditions though. Something about unauthorized something something. If you're looking for "jailbreak" in the documents, I don't think Apple actually mentions the name of it, instead they call it "modifying". I think that's all true, to the best of my knowledge anyway - NC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.240.229.151 (talk) 17:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The photo is somewhat not very neutral
This article like all other articles should have a general and neutral point-of-view. Jailbreaking in general only allows the device to run in superuser (administrator) mode. Cydia, the themes, Rock, etc. are just things that developers include to utilize that. In general, I have two different thoughts about the photos. One is jailbreaking's purpose for most users will be to get Cydia, customize, and all and that's basically how it differentiates from other iPhones and iPod touches, but on the other hand, this article is an article about iOS jailbreaking and generally jailbreaking itself doesn't make your iPhone visually different unless you install extra third-party apps. Just like on the iPhone articles, they don't show the apps installed, just the default apps. Anybody understand what I'm trying to say? Does anyone think we should remove the picture, it's onwards to the user-customized side and not on the general and neutral side. Justinxtreme (talk) 08:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Scratch that, 2/3 of the article talks about advantages of jailbreaking which is not a neutral point of view. Especially the summary in the beginning, anybody agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justinxtreme (talk • contribs) 08:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * What specifically is not neutral or controversial in the article? I don't understand how a demonstration photo used to illustrate the purpose of jailbreaking isn't neutral. The article is supposed to define what jailbreaking is; wiki can't help it if the positives seem to outweigh the negatives of breaking through Apple's intentionally crippled device software. Garoad (talk) 03:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

iPod Touch 4th Gen Jailbreaking
The Pwnage Tool beta has the SHAtter exploit for iPod Touch 4th Gen. Is this not being included because it's still in beta? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.237.96.95 (talk) 21:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's on there now Sir Stupidity (talk) 09:55, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Confusion with iPad
As far as I know, iPad latest ios is 3.2.2. And it is still not jailbreakable.

On some parts of the article, it suggests that you can jailbreak 3.2.2 or install 4.1 on iPad.

On the On October 7, 2010 history section, it says: "and iPad running on iOS 4.1".

On the Devices table it lists 3.2.2 as green and jailbreakable for the iPad.

On the Current (3.2.2 - 4.1) table, it lists the 4.1 firmware for the iPad.

Italo Tasso (talk) 02:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * iPad with iOS 3.2.2 can now be jailbroken with limera1n (I just did). But you still can't install iOS 4.1 on iPad. I changed parts of the history that implied that. I also added a new entry about the delayed release of greenpois0n. Italo Tasso (talk) 01:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Article updated too frequently and early
The jailbreak has not been released, and 4.1 is listed as jailbreakable on iOS devices! Can we stop this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir Stupidity (talk • contribs) 09:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I cleaned up as much as I could and removed a delayed Jailbreak as well. I put in the history that people need to come to the talk page to discuss before adding anything that hasn't been verified by reliable sources.  Momo san  Gespräch 15:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah ok. Because there is just too much speculation editing on this. I'm sort of glad this article has been semi-protected. Sir Stupidity (talk) 02:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Limera1n shAtter?
It was mentioned recently that the latest greenpois0n release wasn't a shAtter exploit.. But there's no mention about limera1n's beta 4.. Is it a shAtter exploit or another patchable one on the next version update? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xushi (talk • contribs) 12:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Limera1n uses a different bootroom exploit that is unpatchable by software updates. It supports more devices than SHAtter did, so Geohot decided to release it first to persuade the Chronic Dev Team to modify Greenp0ison. SHAtter is being reserved for future gen devices, like Iphone 5. And i pretty sure limera1n is out of beta.

Edit request from 193.77.187.174, 19 October 2010
Ipod touch 2G 8gb MC086BT iOS 4.1 cannot be jailbroken. I have 2 version of ipod touch MC models, the other one (MC086ZP) can be easily jailbroken using Greenp0ison method to jailbreak untethered or latest redsnow to jailbreak tethered. For some reason model MC086BT cannot enter DFU mode and it seems for 4.1 version I cannot jailbreak it. I tried over 10 times using any sort of jailbreak application, but it seems it cannot be done.

193.77.187.174 (talk) 14:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Thanks, Stickee (talk)  22:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

iPod Touch 2G MC
The iPod Touch 2G MC model is not jailbreakable on 4.1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.145.148.59 (talk) 04:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Someone must fix. It is Greenpois0n RC4 has come outwith support for ipod 2g MC, and apple tv.

A new version of sn0wbreeze has come out, that is usable with the iPod Touch 2g for 4.1 It is sn0wbreeze 2.0.1 I believe. 75.43.132.35 (talk) 04:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

article level tags
No apparent discussion on this so starting thread and an independent review of the current text which does have the feel of jailbreakers, inc. press materials. Nothing wrong with that if it's factual. Doing development in this area so will be able to empirically verify at least for the current point in time. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 10:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

SHAter Exploit
Chronic Dev team just came up with a jailbreak me replacement. Shoul I add shatter to the list of exploits? TerraNuva Somebody add ibooty by ih8tsn0w under tethered jailbreaks for 4.2.1 -TerraNuva- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.198.26.94 (talk) 06:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

(Mac Only) should be in the subtext in the chart
redsn0w 0.9.7b4 does not work for windows, someone should restore the (Mac Only) subtext in the chart Dsyn22 (talk) 01:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.233.167.144 (talk) 01:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

the "Help Me Jailbreak" section
If the writer (originally the now-blocked 164.58.68.171 and then re-added by 68.97.21.93) of the Help Me Jailbreak section wants to add it again, it's fine! But it's already been removed once by Optocycle on 22:57, 16 January 2011 and was readded with exactly the same text and the same amount of suspicion. Please at least try to make it look significant.

(Forgot to sign the section) The_MP (talk) 00:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Legal Issues
Forgive me, I'm new on Wikipedia and am just getting used to editing. Just a very small change; I believe the legal issues surrounding jailbreaking are not as clear in the EU as they now are in the States. Laywers in the EU claim that jailbreaking has no legal relevance as long as the jailbreak is purely for private/personal use. Maybe this statement could be amended? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgb57 (talk • contribs) 12:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I suggest that we merge the new article Tethered jailbreak with this article. I don't see how the concept of tethered jailbreaking differs enough to warrant a separate article. Zakhalesh (talk) 16:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Why remove bullets?
Earlier today, I added bullet points to the history list as to make it easier to read. I checked back at it and someone had undone the edit? Can you explain? and PS, JailbreakMe.com DOES work on iPhone 4, are you on 4.0-4.1, or are you higher than that? 4.2.1 doesn't work on JailbreakMe.com.

Jediman09 (talk) 22:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Better explain old bootrom vs. new bootrom distinction
Given that the new bootrom can also be subjected to an untethered jailbreak, the old bootrom vs. new bootrom distinction (two entirely separate tables, etc.) needs a fuller explanation than merely saying that the new bootrom is "more difficult". If you are a jailbreaking expert, please add more detail! Or is this distinction merely of historical interest? (In which case, the two tables can be brought together). Ross Fraser (talk) 00:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Change "old/new bootrom" to something like "Retired Devices" or "permanently untethered"?
I'm thinking that we should perhaps change the terms "new bootrom" and "old bootrom" to something like "permanently untethered. This way, the iPod touch 2g MC model would also fit under the top category because it no longer receives updates. If no one replies to this, I'll do it in a while. 67.166.83.73 (talk) 19:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Redsn0w
Who is the retard that said Redsn0w was for "Mac OS X" only? ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.77.84 (talk) 00:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Please forgive me, but there should be no "retarded" editor on the Wikipedia articles. SimonOrJ (talk) 01:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Explanation of "Mac Only" or "Windows Only" on each new jailbreak exploits
People, even me, gets confused if the new device can be jailbroken by Mac or Windows platform. For example, please add "Redsn0w 0.9.51" and make a note that "1" labled exploit is the program that can be jailbroken on Macintosh somewhere near that chart. SimonOrJ (talk) 01:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Why does it say iPad 2 can be jb
in the history section

March 4, 2011	An unofficial version of PwnageTool 4.2 is used to jailbreak all iOS 4.3 devices, including the iPad 2 and the Verizon iPhone 4. The jailbreak, however, is tethered, requiring users to reboot their device using PwnageTool.

But lower down in the device list it says it can't!?

Is thier any links to prove this is correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.108.73.27 (talk) 13:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a partial jailbreak for iPad 2, but since it's so unstable and incomplete it has not been released. 85.224.165.193 (talk) 09:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

List format vs. prose
"This article is in a list format that may be better presented using prose."

The format used is excellent, I think, and a prose style would only significantly muddy the understanding. Given so many dates so close together the list format is entirely appropriate. Overall a superior article to many. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rfinchdavis (talk • contribs) 17:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

All the new Bootroom devices except iPad 2 can be jailbroken in untethered mode, unlike written in here. the current version of redsn0w is 0.9.6 rc12 to untether iOS 4.3.1, not 0.9.7b6. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.66.206.139 (talk) 21:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism?
So... I was reading the article, and there was trhis part that says "January 27, 2008 || The Italian computer hacker Zibri Eskobar finds a key to suck dicks, which proves helpful in programming later jailbreaks.". I don't know if "sucking dicks" has more than one meaning, I only get the obvious one, but that part should be corrected anyway, so if someone knows how... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.238.156.218 (talk) 19:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Not really vandalism, the guy is a huge bag of dicks, and he's not the author of the ramdisk hack as this article will lead you to believe, also, jailbreaking didn't start in 2008. This article is very inaccurate. 85.224.165.193 (talk) 08:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

4.2.1
Why are iOS 4.2.1 and 4.2.6 still apearring as current? if it's because iPhone 3G runs it, 3.1.3's Spirit should be wrote down to, and 4.2.6 should be erased. what about iOS 4.3.1,4.3,4.3.2 which are irrelevant? Do something please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.64.238.228 (talk) 19:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Removal of tables
I reverted the removal of the tables, as the resulting blocks of text were unwieldy and was not easy to read. I'd ask that it be discussed before the tables are removed again. Thank you. - SudoGhost&trade; 16:00, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Devices - Current Devices
It is unclear why under Devices, Current devices the fourth column "Latest Version of iOS that can be Installed" is colored green. It tends to imply some sort of connection with the 6th column "untethered" which is either green or red. The fourth column should have no color as it is not related to the 6th column. The 6th column is related to the 7th column "Latest Untethered Jailbreakable Firmware Version of iOS". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.159.80.213 (talk) 18:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Column six is incorrect. Every row listing "PwnageTool 4.3.4 Redsn0w 0.9.8b3" in column 5 should be red and and "no" as that is an untethered jailbreak.

The heading on column 5, should be "Software used to jailbreak latest version" not "Software used to Jailbreak" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.159.80.213 (talk) 18:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

We need to decide on a way to convey 1. current OS version, 2. software to jailbreak current version (if any), and 3. is that software untethered? And if the answer is no, then we may want a column that shows what most recent version IS untethered. I've tried my best to make it make sense but I'm not always the clearest communicator. In particular I think I might've needed to mark the yellow better. The_MP (talk) 21:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

History section split?
As the article is currently over 64KB, per WP:SPLIT the article should probably be split. I think the best way of doing this is by moving the entire History section to History of iOS jailbreaking, as it takes up a very large section of the article, but may not interest all readers (readers scrolling down will be scrolling for quite some time in order to skip this section). Therefore per WP:BOLD (and the Procedure section of WP:SPLIT) I'm moving the split section to a separate article, History of iOS jailbreaking. - SudoGhost 19:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't just move it without consensus, well, I agree that it takes lots of space but it takes more space to have its seprate article and should be complete, not just the table.  EBE!@#  talkContribs 20:04, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:SPLIT itself instructed me to move it without consensus. I'm not seeing how it "takes more space to have its separate article", and it made the article too long to comfortably navigate. That one section being half of the entire article's size makes it a logical choice for splitting. - SudoGhost 20:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As the article was reverted back without a reason (other than lack of consensus, which per WP:SPLIT is not a reason to revert or delete), I've reverted it back so that only one version of the history exists. That way edits are not lost between the two differing versions, and if the consensus is to delete the article (despite WP:BEGIN not being followed), the article then be moved back. - SudoGhost 20:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - The recently created split, History of iOS jailbreaking has been nominated for deletion here. My arguments for splitting have been placed there, so please view my statements there before commenting on the split.  Thank you. - SudoGhost 20:30, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The AfD has been withdrawn, so I have struck the above comment. - SudoGhost 21:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

If there is some valid reason for not splitting the secton into another article, I'd welcome that reasoning, but WP:SIZERULE and WP:Article Size in general both suggest that splitting the article is completely beneficial, with absolutely no drawbacks. On the other hand, not splitting the article makes it too long to read comfortably (it is esentially an entire second article in the middle of the main article, one many people will not be interested in).

Article size suggests that mobile browsers will have more problem loading larger articles, splitting the article makes it so that both articles are ~32KB, which is the recommended limit for articles being viewed on older browsers (many mobile phones are comparable to older computers, making this a good guideline for determining a comfortable loading experience on a mobile device). As the article's subject directly pertains to mobile devices, it is logical that it will be viewed on mobile devices, and splitting the articles will help with the loading time, making both articles much easier to read.

In short, splitting the article does nothing but help. Nothing is harmed by doing so. SudoGhost 21:04, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

8 United States legal issues
The following citation of the official decision to legalize jailbreaking should be in footnote 28, http://www.copyright.gov/1201/

not the unrelated url presently there. "Apple Says iPhone Jailbreaking is Illegal | Electronic Frontier Foundation". Electronic Frontier Foundation. 2009-02-12. Retrieved 2009-07-17. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.159.80.213 (talk) 19:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Contradictory Information
For the iPad 2, the table shows a latest version of the firmware for which an untethered jailbreak is available and even gives the required software. The previous column claims (and its footnote supports) that no untethered jailbreak is available. This anomoly needs correcting by someone who knows which is correct.

Also, a solution for 4.3.5 would appear to be here. 109.153.235.85 (talk) 11:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The last column is a column of software you can use to do an untethered jailbreak on the software listed in the second to last column. It's confusing because, well, the original chart was even more so and I whipped up a quick replacement :/ I may add the untethered JB information to the column showing the version number. Also, that site looks in no way reputable at all, and as the dozens of sites like that before, it's probably a scam or a way to get malware on your computer. The_MP (talk) 00:49, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Help restore the missing information and tables!
If you disagree with the removal of the useful information and tables from this page, please complain to Sceptre about its removal. Please also write to SudoGhost and Ged UK and ask them not to remove the tables or lock the page. --173.228.104.29 (talk) 04:14, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If you wish for the table to be restored, try to improve the situation by finding reliable sources for the information. If you want the situation fixed, fix it.  "Complaining" on specific user talk pages is about the most ineffective and time wasting thing you can do. - SudoGhost 04:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Please, everybody, let's get the tables back the way they were! – Damsleth Talk 11:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Why don't we give it some time so sources can be added? Why just outright remove it? What a troll! Joshmax (talk) 01:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Time was given, this did not come out of the blue. The issue was right there on the top of the article since July 2010.  A month is a reasonable time to find sufficient third-party sources, let alone 15 months. - SudoGhost 01:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

What to do next with the table?
I'm sad to see the table gone too, but here's my interpretation based on my understanding of Wikipedia rules and guidelines:

It's going to be very difficult to find third-party sources that care about whether redsn0w can jailbreak 4.2.1 untethered on iPod touch 2nd generation MC models, and so on. The only third-party sources that cover the minute details of jailbreaking tools are tech blogs, which don't really count for Wikipedia sourcing purposes. And any "reliable" third-party sources that do comment on jailbreaking, such as mainstream newspapers, get a depressing number of facts completely wrong (they don't bother to verify the details and often don't understand the idea of something like a bootrom jailbreak anyway). So, I believe this table was reasonably reliably sourced — there are few reasons for community-trusted non-commercial jailbreak tool providers to lie about the capabilities of their tools — but I can understand an argument that this table did not contain notable information. If third-party reliable publications do not bother to write about the details of these tools, maybe these details aren't sufficiently notable. OK.

So one potentially viable option is to move this entire table to TheiPhoneWiki (including the proper mention of Wikipedia licensing) and then rebuild this article's jailbreaking section to cover notable jailbroken versions, such as including the recent press about JailbreakMe. I'd love to hear what other people think of the idea of moving this table to TheiPhoneWiki — it's an active wiki and I have an account there, and pretty much anyone else can also get an account if they send a polite email to the wiki admins. Then we'll just have to figure out whether we can link to that page from this article. Dreamyshade (talk) 07:36, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that's an excellent idea, as it retains the useful information so that interested parties can find it, without having to remove otherwise useful information due to Wikipedia's guidelines. - SudoGhost 08:10, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'd also be interested in what you think about whether these things count as a decent sources for this article: PCWorld blog on the iOS 5 jailbreak, Wired blog on old iPad jailbreak, Wired blog on jailbreak for 4.2.1, more Wired — they're posts on tech blogs, but run by mainstream publications. Also, what about Lifehacker and Gizmodo as reputable tech blogs, or CNet as a sort of hybrid? There's a lot of room for interpretation here for what qualifies as an legitimate source for topics not covered well by newspapers (and usually too new to be covered by published books). With a quick search, I just found one book that covers the details of jailbreaking up to 1.1.2 and another that also covers only early jailbreaking tools but with useful notes about Cydia. Dreamyshade (talk) 09:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I would say that Wired and PCWorld fall under WP:NEWSBLOG. I believe (although I may be wrong on this) that CNet and Gizmodo do have editorial oversight and are not considered a self-published source.  Lifehacker I'm not so sure on.  It is already seemingly present in hundreds of articles, but personally I'd get a second opinion before saying that one would be considered reliable. - SudoGhost 10:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm, looking again at the verifiability policy page (thanks for the link-reminder!), the iPhone Dev Blog would probably count as a legitimate source since it's been covered by news sources.: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." It's a bit odd since that's more intended for individuals instead of teams, but they count as experts, and their work has been reported on by reliable sources. So if I improved the table to include a lot more sourcing, from both news-type sources and Dev Blog sources, maybe that would end up reasonable. Dreamyshade (talk) 11:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I stared at a copy of the table for a while, and man, it's unwieldy! I'm thinking we also need some prose descriptions of each significant jailbreaking tool. Anyway, for now I've just put a small properly-cited portion of the table back into the article. I think I'll work on fixing up the rest of the article before finishing the table, especially since I want to think about the table some more to figure out if there's a better way to do this, but I'm definitely open to suggestions. Dreamyshade (talk) 19:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Developer blogs are still primary sources, and given that several developers will want to be the first to claim a jailbreak, we need third-party verification in reliable sources. Sceptre (talk) 19:59, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I can add more third-party sources. In this particular table though, there's no focus on the first to claim a jailbreak - just assertions of whether a certain version has been jailbroken with a certain tool. But it's still useful to have third-party sources to show that somebody with some kind of authority/experience/reputation noticed and cared (aka notability). Dreamyshade (talk) 20:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * For these jailbreaking tools, I believe it's important to include primary source references along with the third-party source references, especially since these are pretty much "self-published expert sources" with no apparent vested interests (the Dev Team blog doesn't even have ads and does not accept donations). For the specific topic of jailbreaking, being very technical, the primary sources are often actually more accurate than third-party sources written by generalists. I believe the publisher field is also very important - leaving it out is sort of like having a list of famous paintings without listing the names of the artists who made them. :) Dreamyshade (talk) 22:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It still remains a self-published primary source, which is the worst kind of source you can have. Doubly so as they're blogs, which again, are not really good self-published sources either. Given the existence of secondary sources, we really don't need to use them, and we really shouldn't either. Sceptre (talk) 18:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * According to my reading of Verifiability, the Dev Blog wouldn't count as the worst kind of source (which I'm thinking would be an extremist/promotional self-published source by non-experts claiming exceptional things about other living people...hehe), but as a self-published expert source previously cited by other publications, being used as a source of information on their own activities, which seems to be a legitimate type of source to include. And it's a useful source because the Dev Team blog often has more detailed and accurate information about the subject than is available through other sources. In publications including PCWorld and CNet, their apparent sources of information on what jailbreaking tools can do are primarily the release notes of the jailbreak tool creators; I don't imagine that many news blog reporters feel the need to painstakingly verify all the possible combinations of which tool successfully jailbreaks x different devices on x different versions (or if they have, I haven't seen any articles that correct what Dev Team blog posts say), since they're reporting what a notable and reliable primary source says. I hope this helps explain why I think those links are important to include, but of course, up for further discussion. Dreamyshade (talk) 11:07, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There are noticeboards and processes where we can seek outside input. Would you be open to discussing this at RS/N? As I've opined, given the existence of secondary sources, we don't need to use primary sources. Sceptre (talk) 12:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, it's usually better to have more experienced eyes rather than fewer! Feel free to start a discussion there and I'll follow along. Dreamyshade (talk) 12:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Where the hell is everything?
I think I found the problem!! Look in the page history (before Spectre deleted every usefull bit of info) to view the tables, if the following doesn't work. I was searching for the same thing and it seems to have something to do with the correct capitalization of "iOS" in the URL. Any wiki editor should consider merging the two pages, because this is ridiculous. It took me more than an hour to find the proper wiki. I can't even link to the correct page as wikipedia redirects me to the useless page somehow. But I am sure I found it (and saved it as a webarchive for offline use, because this problem should be solved) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.194.233.191 (talk) 14:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

'''Please bring the tables back! This was a very useful page and now it's absolutely useless. I think the usefulness of the information far outweighs the issue of missing references.'''

Who removed all the detailed information and on what grounds? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.145.184.16 (talk) 12:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

- Yeah, look at the edits. Around Oct 9th someone thought it would be a good idea to remove the table... while I agree it was messy it is very important information and I wish for it to be brought back. Vahnx (talk) 12:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

- Yep, I've spent time collecting information about the table and watched these tables for months. Tables are detailed and could tell people the progress of the current jailbreak. I wish they will be back. Or maybe we can make a new article on this. Tristan Shi (talk) 17:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

- Can we please bring back the tables? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsujimasen (talk • contribs) 19:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

- Seriously, this is horrible, I've used those tables for over a year now. It's THE most detailed chart on jailbreaking throughout the whole Internet. I can't believe someone can just delete the whole thing! 14:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.52.91.198 (talk)

- Really!? I was using these tables as well and they were pretty useful. Although the information might not have been 100% correct, at the end of the day, I'd rather have them around than being left with nothing at all. 4h34d (talk) 21:17, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

- Get the tables back NOW. This is riciculous, the english wikipedia starts being like the german one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.224.242.240 (talk) 13:32, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

- You can see in the version history. Sceptre deleted the tables.

- Who is this sceptre to remove all this useful information?? This is ridiculous, people have worked countless hours to keep this table up to date!! Bring it back asap! Joshmax (talk) 01:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

- The tables were really nice... how come we can't just restore them from an older version of the page? I'm a n00b at Wiki Syntax so pardon me for asking an apparently stupid question. THE TECHPHANTOM IS HERE BEYATCHES!!! (talk) 14:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The chart: All software used is untethered unless otherwise stated. An untethered jailbreak means the user is able to reboot their Apple iOS device without the need to connect to a computer and re-run the jailbreak tool to power up the device in question. The devices are classified into two categories below, the 'discontinued' devices being those for which Apple no longer releases software updates, while the 'current' devices are those for which Apple is still releasing updates. The iPod touches are split into MB model numbers (old bootrom) and MC model numbers (new bootrom). The iPhone 3GS also uses MB and MC model numbers, but while an MB indicates an old bootrom, some MC models have the old bootrom and the others have the new.[2] Discontinued devices Devices that Apple has ceased to update now all have permanently untethered jailbreaks. Apple could, theoretically, update these devices in the future; however, they have stopped updating the devices, so this is unlikely.

[show]Device	Device Release Date	First Jailbreak Release Date	Latest installable iOS	Software used to jailbreak Current devices [hide]Device	Device Release Date	First Jailbreak Release Date	Latest Version of iOS that can be Installed	Software for jailbreak of latest iOS[J 1]	Latest Untethered Jailbreakable Firmware Version of iOS	Software of latest untethered jailbreak 3rd Gen iPod Touch September 9, 2009	October 11, 2009	4.3.5	redsn0w 0.9.9	4.3.3	PwnageTool 4.3.3.1 redsn0w 0.9.6rc18 JailbreakMe 3.0 Sn0wbreeze 2.7.3d iPhone 3GS (Old Bootrom iBoot-359.3)	June 19, 2009	July 3, 2009	4.3.5	redsn0w 0.9.9b3a	5.0 GM	PwnageTool 4.3.3.1 redsn0w 0.9.6rc18 JailbreakMe 3.0 Sn0wbreeze 2.8b8 iPhone 3GS (New Bootrom 359.3.2)	October 4, 2009	October 25, 2009	4.3.5	redsn0w 0.9.8b4	4.3.3	PwnageTool 4.3.3.1 redsn0w 0.9.6rc18 JailbreakMe 3.0 Sn0wbreeze 2.7.3 iPad (Wi-Fi model)	April 3, 2010	May 2, 2010	4.3.5	redsn0w 0.9.8b4	4.3.3	PwnageTool 4.3.3.1 redsn0w 0.9.6rc18 JailbreakMe 3.0 Sn0wbreeze 2.7.3 iPad (3G model)	April 30, 2010	May 2, 2010	4.3.5	redsn0w 0.9.8b4	4.3.3	PwnageTool 4.3.3.1 redsn0w 0.9.6rc18 JailbreakMe 3.0 Sn0wbreeze 2.7.3 iPhone 4 (GSM model)	June 24, 2010	August 1, 2010	4.3.5	redsn0w 0.9.8b4	4.3.3	PwnageTool 4.3.3.1 redsn0w 0.9.6rc18 JailbreakMe 3.0 Sn0wbreeze 2.7.3 iPhone 4 (CDMA model)	February 10, 2011	February 7, 2011	4.2.10	redsn0w 0.9.8b4	4.2.8	PwnageTool 4.3.3.1 redsn0w 0.9.6rc18 JailbreakMe 3.0 Sn0wbreeze 2.7.3 4th Gen iPod Touch	September 1, 2010	October 9, 2010	4.3.5	redsn0w 0.9.8b5	4.3.3	PwnageTool 4.3.3.1 redsn0w 0.9.6rc18 JailbreakMe 3.0 Sn0wbreeze 2.7.3 Apple TV 2G	October 1, 2010	October 9, 2010	4.3	seas0npass PwnageTool 4.3.3.1 Sn0wbreeze 2.7.3 4.3	seas0npass PwnageTool 4.3.3.1 Sn0wbreeze 2.7.3 iPad 2 (Wi-Fi model)	March 11, 2011	July 5, 2011	4.3.5	N.A	4.3.3	JailbreakMe 3.0 iPad 2 (GSM model)	March 11, 2011	July 5, 2011	4.3.5	N.A	4.3.3	JailbreakMe 3.0 iPad 2 (CDMA model)	March 11, 2011	July 5, 2011	4.3.5	N.A	4.3.3	JailbreakMe 3.0 ^ Green indicates an untethered jailbreak whereas yellow indicates a tethered jailbreak. Red indicates no jailbreak currently available. Software used

Old (1.0 - 4.2.7, 4.3 - 4.3.2) [show]Software Name	Release Date	Platform	Hardware	Firmware	Publishers Current Untethered: 4.2.8, 4.3.3 [hide]Software Name	Release Date	Platform	Hardware	Firmware	Publisher seas0npass	April 5, 2011	Mac OS X, Windows	2nd Gen Apple TV	4.3	Firecore PwnageTool 4.3.3.1	May 6, 2011	Mac OS X	iPhone 3G, iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4 GSM, 3rd Gen iPod Touch, 4th Gen iPod Touch, iPad, 2nd Gen Apple TV	4.3.3	iPhone Dev Team redsn0w 0.9.9 beta 1	May 8, 2011	Mac OS X, Windows	iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4 GSM, 3rd Gen iPod Touch, 4th Gen iPod Touch, 1st Gen iPad	4.2.8, 4.3	iPhone Dev Team[22] Sn0wbreeze 2.7.3	May 13, 2011	Windows	iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4 GSM & CDMA, 3rd Gen iPod Touch, 4th Gen iPod Touch, iPad, 2nd Gen Apple TV	4.3.3, 4.2.8	ih8sn0w JailbreakMe 3.0	July 5, 2011	Mobile Safari (Apple Browser), PDF Exploit, or via iBooks	iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4 GSM, iPhone 4 CDMA, 3rd Gen iPod Touch, 4th Gen iPod Touch, iPad (All)	4.2.6 to 4.2.8, 4.3 to 4.3.3	Comex Current Tethered: 4.2.10, 4.3.5 [hide]Software Name	Release Date	Platform	Hardware	Firmware	Publisher PwnageTool 4.3.3.1 custom bundles	July 26, 2011	Mac OS X	iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4 GSM, 3rd Gen iPod Touch, 4th Gen iPod Touch, iPad,	4.3.3 (Untethered), 4.3.4, 4.3.5 (Tethered)	iPhone Dev Team Redsn0w 0.9.9 beta 1	August 9, 2011	Mac OS X, Windows	iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4, 3rd Gen iPod Touch, 4th Gen iPod Touch, 1st Gen iPad	4.1-4.3.3 (Untethered) 4.2.9, 4.2.10, 4.3.4, 4.3.5	iPhone Dev Team[22] Developer (5.0 GM) Developers of jailbreaks have created jailbreaks that allow other developers to jailbreak their devices that run Apple's beta firmwares. As with the betas themselves, these jailbreaks are not recommended for everyday devices, only developer devices. [hide]Software Name	Release Date	Platform	Hardware	Firmware	Untethered? Publisher Redsn0w 0.9.9 beta 3	October 5, 2011	Mac OS X	iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4, 3rd Gen iPod Touch, 4th Gen iPod Touch, 1st Gen iPad	5.0 beta 1-7, 5.0 GM, 4.3.4, 4.3.5	Only for old bootrom iPhone 3GS	iPhone Dev Team[23] Redsn0w 0.9.9 beta 3a	Windows Sn0wbreeze 2.8 beta 8	October 5, 2011	Windows	iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4, 3rd Gen iPod Touch, 4th Gen iPod Touch, 1st Gen iPad	5.0 GM	Only for old bootrom iPhone 3GS	iH8sn0w [24] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.115.53 (talk) 22:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

- You can view the table here... if someone is good at Wikipedia editing maybe they can get it back in without destroying much content. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=IOS_jailbreaking&oldid=454781564. Edit: http://www.jailbreakmatrix.com/chart is really nice. Vahnx (talk) 22:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

- Yeah we definitely need those tables back. I'm not sure who thought it was a good idea to remove them, but the tables were (are) extremely helpful and one of the best resources I've found on the topic. In my mind, removing them constitutes vandalism. 123.243.186.223 (talk) 01:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed the tables need to come back asap — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.10.103.63 (talk) 03:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The reason the table was removed was per WP:BURDEN, through lack of reliable sources, as WP:V requires reliable, third-party sources, and the sources in the table were all primary sources. While I personally disagree with the removal of the table, the removal of it most certainly was not vandalism, and was a valid removal, per Wikipedia's guidelines.  If you want the table restored, the best way to do that is to find reliable, third party sources to use in place of the primary sources that were being used, and to discuss them here so that a consensus can be reached one way or the other on the table issue. - SudoGhost 03:49, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

By your own burden of evidence argument, we should be provided an opportunity to reference the table, you should not remove what is by all accounts valid info just because its not completely sourced. This excerpt from the burden rule " Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. It has always been good practice to try to find and cite supporting sources yourself. Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people;"

No living people or their reputations were harmed by that table remaining until it can be referenced. That information is useful and one of the only reasons people visit the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.10.103.63 (talk) 04:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There was ample time to provide proper references. The article was tagged as not having adequate reliable sources since January 2011, and the table was not removed until 10 months later.  If you can find any reliable sources can support the information removed, please provide them here and we can discuss them, and move forward from there. - SudoGhost 04:13, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As a humble almost exclusively reader of Wikipedia, I refer to this article constantly to work out the current state of play. Without the table it is useless to me.  Surely, even without proper referencing (it is a fairly rapidly changing thing!) it is worth having *useful* information in this article.  The removal of this table seems to be an absurd application of the rules.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.224.170.144 (talk) 16:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

BRING BACK THE TABLES! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.201.246.50 (talk) 21:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm a mostly read-only Wikipedia user, and the absence of these tables really bothers me. This very article was the only reliable source of information on jailbreakable ios versions on the web. Removal of the list renders the whole article useless for a whole sector of readers. I think this should be considered a severe wikipedia rule abuse by Sceptre. What third-party sources are you talking about? Could you find any for us? If so, please include them in the article and restore the tables. Switch to constructive thinking, not destroying! .. so anyway, just left this note here so authors can see that wiping out the tables was a horrible thing to do. Will be really grateful if the article gets reverted and the list continues to be updated. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.100.238.242 (talk) 22:14, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The table is available here for the time being. http://iosjailbreak.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_software_used_for_jailbreaking Sonixrulerz (talk) 09:09, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

- Thanks Sonixrulerz. Everyone, let's use that wiki from now on :D — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vahnx (talk • contribs) 18:36, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Bring back the table NOW!!! Tom (talk) 12:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Response
Other editors such as SudoGhost have answered for me, although I better say why myself: it's a non-negotiable Wikipedia policy that Wikipedia content "must be attributable to a reliable, published source appropriate for the content in question.". This was not the case at all. What content was sourced was done to self-published development blogs. Due to that, there was also concerns on whether the material could be constituted as spam. Wikipedia policy empowers editors to remove poorly sourced material and it is the responsiblity of those wishing to re-introduce it to show it's properly sourced, otherwise it's liable to be removed again. Whether the content is useful is unimportant: Wikipedia is an an encyclopedia, and its content must conform to its policies. If you don't like that, you're completely allowed to set up your own website with the information. Sceptre (talk) 14:00, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

History of iOS jailbreaking merge
Pace the recent AfD (which has no weight in merge discussions), I don't think that the article can justify its own existence as a spinout article; with the unverifiable information removed, the amount of prose only amounts to about 8KB. Hell, with the unverifiable information there, the prose is small enough that splitting the article shouldn't have been done in the first place. Hence, I think the information, by the converse of summary style, should be in this article instead. Sceptre (talk) 14:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree on the merge proposal. It makes sense to have a reasonable prose section covering the notable points of the history instead of a separate list of details + a list of first jailbreaks. Lists put undue emphasis on specific dates, anyway. It'll take a while to get it all correct and complete, but I'm working on this. (And, many of the removed items of that history article could be reasonably sourced with just a little searching...) Dreamyshade (talk) 14:36, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As a note, what you removed from the article has been restored, as it was not "unverifiable". The sources satisfy WP:ABOUTSELF. - SudoGhost 14:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I am however, interested in why two AfDs and a talk page discussion have no weight in a merge discussion, given that merging the article was discussed all three times, and summarily rejected. The article has thrice "justified" itself, you removing most of the content from the article without explanation and then immediately citing the small size is an invalid argument for merging, and being the only reason given, I see no reason to merge the article. - SudoGhost 14:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The merge process is a content process. AfD does not make decisions on content. Sceptre (talk) 15:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As per what? You merely saying so?  AfD discussions discuss content, that's what an AfD is.  Especially an AfD that was not followed according to WP:BEGIN.  The discussion to merge the content should have been done beforehand, not after the fact.  This merge proposal is without merit of any sort, and you've yet to provide a valid reason for merging the article.  - SudoGhost 15:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * In practice, AfD is only concerned with whether an article passes N, and otherwise operates on the assumption that the editing process can "improve" content. Hence why this AfD closed as a keep even though the previous AfD was a keep that was conditional on immediate cleanup (that never happened). You can't argue that AfD is not cleanup as a reason to keep an article, and then use the fact it survived an AfD to resist cleanup. Merging is part of the editing process, and can be discussed during, before, or after an AfD.
 * That said: there is 5KB of prose in this article. The size of History of iOS jailbreaking is 35KB. A generous estimate would put the amount of prose in that article at 20KB. WP:SIZERULE states that articles with less than 40KB of prose "do not justify division". Given the article was spun-out on WP:SIZE grounds, it can be likewise spun back in on size grounds too. Sceptre (talk) 15:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking a constructive initial path may be to start building a reasonable prose summary for the main article, seeing if it gets overly long as the most notable bits are covered, while also working on sourcing more of the History page items and pruning the truly less-than-significant details - a dual approach. And a very interesting question apart from notability concerns is how to structure this stuff in prose, since it's a complex history where the timeline is significant, but also individual tools are significant - and each tool spans scattered sections of the chronology. I think we'll figure it out as we source it, but more conceptual suggestions are welcome too. Dreamyshade (talk) 15:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No merger "Pace" is á propos of nothing here, brother, since you're not addressing the AfD contributors with whom you disagree, per TheFreeDictionary. Unverified is not unverifiable, and most of what needs to be verified is chronology, which in this case is a simple (though mind-numbing) task - even a forum posting can be a reliable source for a first sighting of a well-known exploit. To suggest merging these articles is tantamount to suggesting that History of iOS jailbreaking be gutted and dressed, with one choice filet retained as a new History section of iOS jailbreaking and the rest of the beast tossed into the memory hole. It's a perfectly terrible suggestion. You'd have the tail wag the dog - in three years the fact of iOS jailbreaking will have become as relevant as ourTunes and in five years forgotten, while the motivations for and process of developing the technology and its counter-measures will continue to be interesting and relevant to developers and historians alike. A short summary here is best, since I venture that today most readers are much more interested in the current practice of iOS jailbreaking than in its development, with a link to a more detailed history for readers who want to know how and why the practice developed.


 * NB: WP:Article size is not a rule but a guideline, "best treated with common sense", nor does citing it with two aliases make it two rules, User:Spectre. There is no "converse" of the WP:Summary style guideline, which suggests a summary of and a link to an article on a topical detail when inclusion of the of the information in the main article would be cumbersome. In this case the topical detail is an article independent of the "main" article, so it's unnecessary to separate it, though a summary of it and a link to it are indicated by the guideline. Among the WP:Merging you'll find no good reason to merge these pages and two reasons to avoid it. And, don't you feel just a bit silly making a legalistic argument to provide less in an article for those who seek more? Yappy2bhere (talk) 18:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

No mention of sn0wbreeze?
Why not? --217.39.35.230 (talk) 20:44, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * No particular reason to omit it, it's just not as notable as the other tools mentioned — it hasn't been the first tool to make new jailbreaks available, so it doesn't get as much attention as the others. It's probably worth a mention though, since people do use it. With a little searching I found a couple posts that could be used as sources: Sn0wbreeze Releases Untethered Verizon iPhone Jailbreak for Windows and Apple's iOS 5 Beta 6 Jailbroken, along with TUAW's similar posts on the topic and Engadget's also-similar posts, but it could be helpful to have a few more sources if you can dig some up. Dreamyshade (talk) 02:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Deletion discussion and merge proposal for related articles
People watching this article may also be interested in participating in these discussions: deletion discussion for PwnageTool and proposed merge of redsn0w into iPhone Dev Team. Dreamyshade (talk) 05:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Apps denied App Store approval
The tone of that section shows opposition to Apple. and it is WP:UNDUECantaloupe2 (talk) 22:25, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Placement of SHSH blob material
A couple other editors and I are trying to figure out what to do with SHSH blob, including a suggestion to merge it into this article, so people watching this article may be interested in joining the discussions at Talk:IOS and Talk:SHSH blob. Dreamyshade (talk) 01:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The more I read about it,the more it seems out of place here. It should be a paragraph on iOS and be done with it. Is "jailbreaking" alteration a per-requisite for firmware rollback? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 04:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * As noted on Talk:IOS, you can exploit the restore protocol without altering the software on the device, and as noted on Talk:SHSH blob, you can cache and re-use SHSH blobs without ever exploiting the operating system on the device. In other words, no. :) It's just heavily associated with jailbreaking since that's the main reason why people care about SHSH blobs, and most of the available SHSH blob tools and research have been produced by people who also work on jailbreaking. Dreamyshade (talk) 04:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clarification. Now seeing that there's no direct connection, I don't find it merits inclusion here. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 04:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I can see an argument for it on the grounds that a lot of secondary sources discussing jailbreaking also discuss SHSH blobs - here are a few I found without much searching:
 * "We’re currently experiencing that wonderful, rare period of time where all devices have been jailbroken on the latest firmware, but before you iOS users get too carried away, it’s of paramount importance that you save your iOS 5.1.1 SHSH blobs now, before Apple ceases signing the firmware."
 * "If you’re going to jailbreak your iPhone or iPad, before you get started, we highly recommend you backup your device’s SHSH blobs."
 * "For those of you planning to jailbreak, once you do, don't forget to back up your SHSH ‘blobs,’ the hashes iTunes checks when you restore, so you can restore to this jailbreakable version of the OS even after Apple updates it, closes the jailbreak vulnerability, and stops signing restores of OS 3.2."
 * Dreamyshade (talk) 04:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Just as much as I can see onions getting discussed in depth in ketchup because they're frequently served together at the condiment stand. SHSH blob and jailbreaking are mutually exclusive. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 07:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Mustard (condiment) mentions hot dogs and Hollandaise sauce. :) Jailbreaking and SHSH blobs aren't mutually exclusive (they're often used together), but they also aren't the same topic. My current thinking is that SHSH blob should be retitled and maybe mentioned briefly in this article, but I'm interested in other perspectives, and I figured it was worth providing the source examples to help other people make informed judgments. Dreamyshade (talk) 09:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

further edit to Forbes analysis of UCSB
This is the new version: "A Forbes staff analyzed UCSB study on 1407 free programs available from third party source and Apple. Of 1,407 free apps investigated in the cited study, 825 were downloaded from Apple’s App Store using the website App Tracker, and 526 from BigBoss(Cydia's default repository). 21% of official apps tested leaked device ID and 4% leaked location. Unofficial apps leaked 4% and 0.2% respectively. 0.2% from Cydia leaked photos and browsing history while Apple store leaked none. He commented that unauthorized apps tend to respect privacy better than official ones. [16] Also, there is a program called PrivaCy which allows user to control the upload of usage statistics to remote servers."

The article cited Freeman who extremely likely has heavily slanted POV so I added additional data to help reader draw their own conclusion rather than taking Forbes comment at face value. For some it might be of greater concern that Cydia sourced one leaked private photos when Apple sourced ones didn't. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 17:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I think we can presume that the Forbes writer is representing the facts fairly; do you have evidence to show that Freeman provides heavily biased or otherwise unreliable information? In any case, I'm fine with providing specific numbers, but your summary of the study is somewhat lengthy for what should be a minor detail in the article. (If I were trying to represent Cydia in a good light, I'd support more coverage since the results were flattering, but I'm trying to apply normal standards.) The original article text was 290 characters, and the last compromise suggested at was 426 characters:
 * "A UCSB study of 825 free programs available from the BigBoss repository (a default repository in Cydia) and 526 free apps from the App Store found, according to a Forbes article, "that the popular unauthorized apps outside those walls tend to respect privacy better than the approved ones inside." PrivaCy and ContactPrivacy are programs available for jailbroken devices that are designed to add extra privacy options to iOS."
 * Your suggestion is 683 characters. Here's a new suggestion with 502 characters, which takes the third-opinion-approved text and replaces the summary with details:
 * "A UCSB study of 825 free packages from the BigBoss repository (a default repository in Cydia) and 526 free apps from the App Store found that 4% of the BigBoss packages leaked the device ID and 0.2% leaked location, while the App Store apps leaked 21% and 4% respectively; 0.2% of the BigBoss packages leaked photos and browsing history while the App Store apps leaked none. PrivaCy and ContactPrivacy are packages available for jailbroken devices that are designed to add extra privacy options to iOS."
 * I changed the order of the numbers so that BigBoss numbers are consistently first and App Store numbers are consistently second, for clarity. Dreamyshade (talk) 01:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Default to talk page discussion
Hi Cantaloupe2! Before making major edits, especially when changing or removing long-established material, would you consider starting a talk page discussion first?

The essay NPOV dispute suggests: "If you come across an article whose content does not seem to be consistent with Wikipedia's NPOV policy, use one of the tags below to mark the article's main page. Then, on the article's talk page, make a new section entitled "NPOV dispute [- followed by a section's name if you're challenging just a particular section of the article and not the article as a whole]"."

The policy WP:V says "Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. When tagging or removing material on these grounds, make it clear that you have a concern that the material itself is unverifiable."

The revised introduction is significantly less precise, and it's not accurate, since people obviously jailbreak for many reasons, not just for running unapproved apps - unofficial carrier unlocking is already included in the article, and additional reasons that should be covered by the article include running non-app software that cannot be approved by the App Store, security research, developing software on the device, etc. Also, Business Insider isn't a good source - see "Now, like his nemesis, Mr. Blodget has recast himself as a journalist -- he is the editor in chief of a gossipy Web site, Business Insider.", "And to draw as many viewers as possible, Henry Blodget, Business Insider's chief executive and editor—and famously banned for life from Wall Street after a stint as an analyst—believes that news needs to be fun.", "Business Insider, over-aggregation, and the mad grab for traffic", etc.

Wu is a recognized expert on this subject, so it makes sense to quote him.

Thanks! Dreamyshade (talk) 12:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC) Modified 12:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I put an under-construction tag. Allow a few days if that is not exceedingly objectionable to you. Also, that NPOV dispute page is only an essay, not WP guideline or policy. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 12:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I noted that it was an essay. :) Why not discuss changes on the talk page for a few days before putting them into the article? Editing policy says "Be cautious with major changes: consider discussing them first. With large proposed deletions or replacements, it may be best to suggest changes in a discussion, to prevent edit warring and disillusioning either other editors or yourself (if your hard work is rejected by others)." It also says "Instead of deleting text, consider:" with a list of suggestions. Dreamyshade (talk) 12:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Wu is a legal expert, but lawyers routinely disagree with each other. That said, his argument covered in depth that it is covered in the article advance a position in favor of jailbreaking. If clear cut conclusion is available, it is not needed. Allow it a few days. I put up an under construction tag and its a bold edit. If its so intolerable for you, revert it. That's the WP:BRD cycle. I don't really feel like going through you vs me back-and-forth again, so we'll run it through RfC as we did Cydia, then escalate to Neutrality notice board and the whole nine yard if situation warrants. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 12:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * This edit to the legality section has also introduced a lot of problems. The New York Post is a tabloid newspaper, not a good source for technical or legal information. The Copyright Office declining to approve a new exemption means that the status of tablet jailbreaking is the same as it was before the ruling came out, a grey area, not illegal (although a lot of headlines were alarmist on this). The 2010 exemption was only for iPhones, not for jailbreaking in general. If you have a concern with the interpretation of these sources, I believe an appropriate next step would be to ask for an evaluation from a WikiProject Law member or similar.
 * I was trying to be a good COI editor by avoiding editing the main article, but I'll revert - thanks! WP:BRD is only an essay, so I try to be cautious with such things. I think skipping to RfC sounds good. Dreamyshade (talk) 13:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * May I also revert some of the edits you did from 7 December to 10 December? Some of them are OK with me, but I would definitely like to include others in this RfC as well. Dreamyshade (talk) 13:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I carefully reviewed those earlier edits. So, I have objections to that and those revolve around your specific COI. What are your contentions? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 13:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments on recent edits
Here's a list of earlier edits with my comments and suggestions. Again, I agree with your suggestion that we skip to RfC, to help avoid getting stuck in a long debate. :)


 * "there is no concrete legal citation or court rulings, so rewording as the site says" - I agree that rewording this to be more precise is a good idea, but your edit removed some information, and WP:CLAIM recommends avoiding words like "speculated". I suggest a compromise: "According to lawyers asked by a newspaper, the laws of Singapore may allow jailbreaking for the purpose of installing and using non-copyright-infringing software."


 * I agree that most of the "banned apps" section wasn't relevant (I didn't add it to the article), so these two edits are OK with me: "no evidence that people look for software in protest" and "removed examples to free it from political issues surrounding Apple and opponents of Apple's measures". This new sentence is not quite correct though: "Apps are subject to screening by iPhone Developer Program License Agreement before they are available through App Store." Apps are subject to screening by the company, not by a document. I suggest this wording: "Apple checks apps for compliance with its iOS Developer Program License Agreement before accepting them for distribution in the App Store." Active voice is clearer than passive voice, "checks" is a more familiar word than "screens", and "iOS Developer Program License Agreement" is the updated name of the agreement.


 * "WP:SPS, a letter to editor" - Instead of removing that sentence for being unreferenced, we can copyedit it and add a reference. (Note that I didn't add this sentence.) This Harvard Business Review blog post says "Rather than use the laborious system that Apple designed (reminiscent of early Chinese input systems), many Chinese iPhone owners jailbreak their phones and install third-party software that drastically simplifies the process." (I also found this personal blog post with details, but it's definitely a SPS, so we can't use it.) My suggestion for this sentence: "Some Chinese iPhone users jailbreak their devices to install third-party input methods, which cannot be installed via Apple's App Store."


 * "simply put, jailbreaking removes limitations. its unnecessary to add Cydia this, Cydia that". I know it will be hard to take me seriously on this one since it directly involves Cydia, but I invite you read reliable sources on jailbreaking and see if you can verify what I say. I believe this paragraph was reasonably referenced and also important, because a lot of people who jailbreak their devices do it in order to install software via Cydia, especially customizations of various kinds. If the article doesn't include discussion of Cydia or the kinds of software that people install via Cydia, the article ends up somewhat unbalanced - with lots of technical and historical details about the tools, but little indication of why people jailbreak their devices. For more sources on this topic, see my lists at Talk:Cydia and Talk:Cydia. An additional problem with this edit is that the new sentence is sourced to a self-published blog post (see Gizmowatch's description), and it needs grammar fixes as well.


 * This edit and this edit are section reorganization that consolidate "Apps denied App Store approval" and "Added features and customizations" into "Use of third party apps". Changing this to "Use of third party apps" doesn't quite cover the main kind of third-party software that people install on jailbroken phones, as explained at Cydia - people install little customizations that aren't really "apps" - instead of adding a new icon to your phone, they add a new style for your existing icons, for example. People still call them apps sometimes though, so I don't think this is a big deal. I just think it would be nice to have the title be more precise.


 * "specify that the study only investigated FREE apps. Paid apps were not included in his analysis." (And second edit with phrasing changes.) I like the idea of phrasing this to be more precise, but I think the result is a bit wordy. It's a minor detail, so the coverage should be a brief summary; I believe the specific number of programs isn't important enough to include. I believe the source also supports slightly more general phrasing for the second sentence. Here's my suggestion:


 * Original text: "A 2011 study of a sample of programs available from the BigBoss repository (a default repository in Cydia) found that fewer of them leaked user data than a sample of programs available from the App Store. There are programs available via Cydia designed to add extra privacy features to iOS."


 * Your text: "A Forbes staff analyzed UCSB study on sample of free programs available from the BigBoss repository (a default repository in Cydia) and Apple reports. Of 1,407 free apps investigated in the cited study, 825 were downloaded from Apple’s App Store using the website App Tracker, and 526 accessible through BigBoss. He summarized "that the popular unauthorized apps outside those walls tend to respect privacy better than the approved ones inside." Also, there is a program called PrivaCy which allows user to control the upload of usage statistics to remote servers."


 * Compromise: "A UCSB study of a sample of free programs available from the BigBoss repository (a default repository in Cydia) and from the App Store found, according to a Forbes article, "that the popular unauthorized apps outside those walls tend to respect privacy better than the approved ones inside." PrivaCy and ContactPrivacy are programs available for jailbroken devices that are designed to add extra privacy options to iOS."


 * "need reliable secondary source to prove the date" - Here are a couple sources: This TUAW article on February 1, 2009 says "Yesterday" for that event, and this Ars Technica article from a couple days later confirms the reliability of the TUAW report.

OK, I think that covers it. Thanks for putting some time and effort into this article. Dreamyshade (talk) 12:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I came here from the dispute listed at WP:3O, and I'm having a hard time figuring out if this is still in dispute, and if so, which particular diff(s) represent(s) the dispute in question. JS Uralia (talk) 19:23, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for stopping by! Yes, this is still an active dispute, and all of the diffs linked above in this section (under "Comments on recent edits") are the disputed edits. The summary is that Cantaloupe2 made some changes, and I disagreed with most of them, but since I have some COI on this topic (I work for the company that produces Cydia, which is installed by iOS jailbreaking tools), I chose to comment with my suggestions/concerns instead of making changes myself. This editor and I have spent a lot of time disagreeing on edits to other jailbreaking-related articles (see Talk:Cydia, Talk:Greenpois0n, and Talk:SHSH blob), so I believe we're both interested in hearing a fresh perspective on the disputes listed above. Dreamyshade (talk) 19:56, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Here are my third opinion recommendations:
 * For neither statement is supported very well by the source. I recommend: "Jailbreaking might be legal in Singapore if done to provide interoperability and not circumvent copyright, but that has not been tested in court."
 * Re the "banned apps" resolved dispute, I agree with the proposal to include that, "Apple checks apps for compliance with its iOS Developer Program License Agreement before accepting them for distribution in the App Store." That is of interest to anyone likely to be interested in this article, because the Agreement explains why some popular apps and other software is unavailable without jailbreaking.
 * On, I recommend: "Many Chinese iPhone owners jailbreak their phones to install third-party Chinese character input systems because they are easier to use than Apple's."
 * For, I agree with the longer passage which was deleted because "Jailbreaking permits installation of any apps" does not explain that, as in the Chinese case and e.g. WiFi tethering, much of the software sought by jailbreakers is not apps but system software. Failing to explain that to readers is a substantial omission. This also applies to the disputed edits  and.
 * The second of the two paragraphs added by should be moved to a new section such as "Risks of jailbreaking" to which the poorly named "Security" section should be moved as a sub-section.
 * Re and, I agree with the proposed compromise text: "A UCSB study of a sample of free programs available from the BigBoss repository (a default repository in Cydia) and from the App Store found, according to a Forbes article, "that the popular unauthorized apps outside those walls tend to respect privacy better than the approved ones inside." PrivaCy and ContactPrivacy are programs available for jailbroken devices that are designed to add extra privacy options to iOS."


 * Problem with this phrasing is that it obscures the sample size. It does not tell if it was 3, or 300 and tend to distort what the research shows. The types of compromises shown by research shows that concerns are of relatively benign breach. This article is POV, because it advances the position that "unofficial apps are more secure" if and big if... when we're only looking at FREE programs. For non-free programs the sale of programs provides the revenue and getting creative to make money after the program is not as much of a concern. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 08:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I believe saying "sample" carries the correct implication that it was a small but not insignificant number, and that including the "free programs" detail helps readers correctly judge the validity of the information. I would be OK with saying "A UCSB study of a few hundred free programs" or similar though. I think we can presume that the authors of the study approached the subject without bias and reported what they found. Dreamyshade (talk) 05:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * That's a bunch of subjective interpretive fluffy puff. If you were doing a research, you might do it that way, but here, we do not do original research and substituting "a few hundred" in place of the actual number doesn't shorten the sentence in anyway and is of no value besides deliberate obfuscation. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 05:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, I appreciate that you prefer precision. I'd also be OK with "A UCSB study of 825 free programs available from the BigBoss repository (a default repository in Cydia) and 526 free apps from the App Store found" if that would work for you. Dreamyshade (talk) 06:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Are those the actual numbers from the source? If so, it's certainly better to include them. All this issues are a huge edit and I'm busy for the next few days so if you don't want to be the one to actually make the edits, how about doing them and then making a self-revert, so I can review that and close the 3O issues? That would be a whole lot easier for me. JS Uralia (talk) 05:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, those numbers are from the source. I avoid editing the article since I have a COI, but that's a good suggestion to make the changes and self-revert so they can be checked; I'll do that. Dreamyshade (talk) 06:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * For, I support adding the Ars Technica source to confirm the date in question.
 * I am happy to allow time for feedback before implementing these recommendations. I have removed the WP:3O request and intend to make these changes if no feedback is forthcoming. JS Uralia (talk) 21:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, these suggestions sound good to me. The "second of the two paragraphs" text was just existing text that was getting moved around (see these two edits: removing it and putting it back), but I like the idea of moving it again and renaming the security section. Naming it "Risks of jailbreaking" could be a tiny bit POV since the text is about ways that jailbreaking both increases and decreases security/privacy/etc. risks, and that title could imply that the section is about negative risks. But I'm not sure how I'd title this section - it's tricky to phrase neutrally without calling it something bland like "Security, privacy and stability". Dreamyshade (talk) 22:52, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, this is resolved now. I chose to not change the text about the UCSB study since it's still being discussed - see. Dreamyshade (talk) 01:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)