- Joined
- Jan 15, 2019
Jailbreaking has consistently been upheld as a consumer right any time it's ever actually made it to court. The trick is practically nobody's ever actually tried. Cases companies have been retarded enough to bring so far have all focused on smartphones (Apple famously had their asses handed to them in 2010 and subsequent revisions of rules from the Copyright Office have reinforced that ass-kicking) and there is no case law concerning "jailbreaking" video game consoles (though the specific rules for smartphones don't mention them specifically).It's a noble idea but it seems like a fun way to get bogged down in a years-long unwinnable lawsuit
It's all bluster. Every fucking bit of it. Remember our "friends" over at Nintendo, who have a remarkable history for lots of noisemaking and threats and a track record for fucking losing their litigation when they try. They sued Galoob over Game Genie (and lost). They've repeatedly threatened to litigate to stop bootleg cartridges and have never once successfully done so. They're currently losing their asses over Palworld (not related to jailbreaking, but another classic case of hubris leading to a poor choice in targets, and tangentially related because they're abusing copyright and patent law to harm a competitor). Even fucking Japan is sick of their shit. They're not just losing that case, either -- both American and Japanese patent officials are actually invalidating Nintendo's patents too. Turns out when you actually look at the dumb shit they're claiming, it winds up being really retarded and not worthy of protection.
No corporate faggots have the balls to take this nonsense to big-boy court because they're not (yet) confident the courts are crooked enough to take their side on it. They don't want to risk setting precedent. So they just let things float in "limbo" with lots of hot air and "threats" but little action (because it only takes one wily asshole to punch them in the nose in court to put a stop to all of this bullshit).
The bottom line is you own the shit you pay for, whether the lawyers like it or not, and the courts have generally upheld that principle. Computers are no different. It's your hardware. You are free to run whatever you please on it. The vendor doesn't have to like it, or support it, but companies like Samsung are borderline breaking the law as it is already (their tablets and phones "allow" you to unlock their restricted bootloaders, but at the expense of tripping a non-resettable hardware fuse, voiding the warranty, refusing to service unlocked units even for obvious unrelated hardware faults, and disabling a substantial portion of their functionality), it's just that nobody's gotten feisty enough to take their faggy asses to court to spank them for it.
ETA:
You touched on it in your comment but this mostly comes down to architecture design. Integrated graphics w/unified UDRAM can be a winning combination under the right conditions. Modern Macs built on so-called "Apple Silicon" are absolute monsters for LLM workloads and they're all built on iGPUs sharing soldered RAM with the main system. The only thing wrong with those machines is the "Apple" logo -- they (sometimes) make undeniably good hardware, then hobble it with MacOS and lock it all down tight and smear Apple-branded feces all over it. It's a shame they act the way they do. They're holding genuinely impressive equipment hostage with their bullshit.(Partly) the same reason that having 64 gigs of RAM and integrated graphics is inferior to 16 gigs of RAM and a card with 12 of VRAM.
Even the machine I'm running is incredible (it's not Apple, but an AMD Ryzen AI 395+ Pro, i.e. Zen5 with a Radeon iGPU, 128GB unified RAM). Not quite as fast as NVidia's datacenter monsters, but it punches well above its pay grade. Unified layouts aren't auto-fails. It just has to be done right, and that generally rules out "cheap" designs (which do the unified thing but poorly).
Last edited: