The US Library of Congress has ruled that jailbreaking an iPhone is not a violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DCMA). "Jailbreaking" describes the use of software that disables the built in protections in the iPhone OS and allows users to install and run applications not sanctioned by Apple on their iPhones. There are no jailbreaking applications available for the iPhone 4 as yet, but there are several for the earlier models, and while the practice is still not recommended for casual, non-technical users, the ruling does go to the heart of one of the major issues in the developing smartphone market.
Those who have worked in smartphone application development have learned that these crafty new devices are not as developer-friendly as your traditional PC. In the PC world, an application written for one hardware platform will pretty much run on any other. That flexibility has led to an entire industry that added value to the PC.
The same cannot be said about smartphones, and we have seen this particularly with Windows Mobile. In smartphones, the operating system is closely tied to the hardware, with the result that application transportability has been an iffy proposition. This was seen most pointedly with the dual mode Wi-Fi/cellular devices that required a special client on the handset that allowed it to determine when the user was moving out of Wi-Fi range and switched the call to a cellular connection. The vast majority of those solutions would only operate reliably on Nokia/Symbian devices. While the vendors advertised Windows Mobile support, they were far more cautious about promising support on every conceivable hardware implementation. (Subsequently some of those developed BlackBerry and iPhone support as well)
To ensure functional software solutions in a smartphone environment, some type of quality control mechanism was required. In the Windows Mobile world, software developers would typically specify which hardware models their applications would work on. In other cases, mobile computer manufacturers like Motorola/Symbol provided applications testing.
Apple and RIM/BlackBerry took on the quality control functions themselves, both to ensure basic performance and to confirm that the application did not open any security vulnerabilities in the user's device. To support that, Apple and RIM provided applications testing and controlled software distribution.
Apple clearly developed the most draconian of these systems and in the eyes of many of us, used it to extend their control of the market as well as to "ensure an excellent customer experience". Applications like Google Voice that changed the calling process or NullRiver’s application that allowed iPhone tethering were turned down by Apple (there is still a question as to whether that denial was Apple’s idea or a concession to AT&T, the iPhone's exclusive US carrier).
To enforce this policy, Apple held that jailbreaking the iPhone both violated the DMCA and breached the contract as detailed in the Software License Agreement SLA). What the Library of Congress has said is that the DCMA does not prohibit this, but Apple is still free to include that provision in their SLA. In reality, Apple has never attempted to prosecute a customer for jailbreaking an iPhone, though the warranty is violated and the phone may be rendered inoperable (i.e. "bricked").
The ruling will not be an issue for the vast majority of iPhone users who are content with what Apple allows them to do, but jailbreaking (at least on earlier models) is routine among power users. Those users have access to a much richer set of application capabilities than what is available from Apple.
Like Apple, RIM operates on a similar closed model, and Microsoft has indicated that when they move to the long-awaited Windows Phone 7, they too will adopt a closed software distribution model. The major standout is Google's Android, where the intention is to pursue a fully open software model. Some of us are questioning whether the Android team will be able to deliver a deliver a good user experience across the full range of touch screen, qwerty, tablet, and other devices from multiple manufacturers that all promise to support Android.
It would be premature to say that the walls are tumbling down with regard to smartphone software, but one legal underpinning of the closed model has been knocked out. In the longer run, the big question will be how significant a factor open software will be on smartphones, particularly if users are forced to find support outside of the cozy (if sometimes “smothering”) blanket being provided by the manufacturers.
