backtop


Print 16 comment(s) - last by chripuck.. on Feb 7 at 10:43 AM


  (Source: macrumors.com)
Cydia had been installed 1.7 million times by Tuesday

A new jailbreak for iOS finally arrived earlier this week, and it looks like a lot of Apple users were eager to try it out.

According to Jay Freeman, an administrator at alt appstore Cydia (a marketplace for unapproved applications), the new evasi0n jailbreak for iOS 6.x devices was installed 800,000 times within six hours of its release.

Freeman further revealed that Cydia had been installed 1.7 million times by Tuesday, and had about 14,000 hits per minute at peak download times. This caused the server to crash several times.

The evasi0n jailbreak  allows users to install unauthorized apps onto iPhones, iPads and iPod touch devices. More specifically, it supports iPhone 3GS/4/4S/5, iPad 2/3/4, iPad mini and iPod touch (fourth and fifth generations).

The new evasi0n jailbreak is the first for iOS 6.x, and is also the first release since the Redsn0w jailbreak for 5.1.1. Making jailbreaks for iOS devices have become increasingly difficult since Apple has tried to crack down on security and keep iOS as closed as possible.

Source: MacRumors



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: << 1%
By TakinYourPoints on 2/6/2013 3:12:50 AM , Rating: 2
I don't know. They have all sorts of dumb patents, but in over five years they haven't done it.

The only other example that comes to mind is that Microsoft is capable of remotely bricking 360s that have been modified to run pirated games via software update. Whether or not they've actually followed through with it is still up for debate though, so who knows? Some say they have, Microsoft has gone on the record to say they've never done it.

Deliberately bricking isn't a common practice for any company, it seems. I can't think of any examples that go beyond hearsay.


RE: << 1%
By maugrimtr on 2/6/2013 10:54:28 AM , Rating: 2
Bricking is not commonly done because it's illegal. Courts have a naughty habit of throwing out those EULAs and service agreements companies use to authorize and justify an ability to brick a device (or limit your rights in other ways). If it were actually ever done - the first court case through would make it clear that you may not deliberately dispossess a person of their rights to a product they purchased simply because they may (presumption of innocence) have committed some other illegal act.


"It seems as though my state-funded math degree has failed me. Let the lashings commence." -- DailyTech Editor-in-Chief Kristopher Kubicki

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki