[saurik]

(Note: I realize that this is somewhat off-topic for the thread as a whole, but I post it as a direct response to the specific argument you are making in your comment. With that in mind, I will also explicitly say I don't even disagree with your conclusion: I just feel that there is a misconception about jailbreaking that should be corrected that is causing the argument to not really follow all the way through to the conclusion. In the end, I still agree that Apple already has the control they need in this scenario, and the suggested solutions in the article would not cause them any challenges in that regard.)

The percentage of people jailbreaking their iPhone over time has not really fallen, excepting of course times when we don't have a current jailbreak (like now, but that rebounds quickly when we do as the demand is latent and pounces); I wouldn't even call it small, as it hovers upwards of 10%: of the hundreds of millions of active devices Apple has out there, tens of millions of them are jailbroken (and yes: they are often current devices; the people most likely to want the absolute newest device constantly are also the people most likely to want even more out of it and thereby jailbreak).

That said, that isn't really relevant: jailbreaking has nothing at all to do with the device testing limit on applications because jailbreaking isn't really about applications: it is about all of the little modifications we make to existing software using my Substrate library... the default repositories in Cydia actually carry an insignificant number of "applications" (something that could be installed with a developer certificate) in comparison to the number of Substrate extensions. If you told me tomorrow that everyone in the world could now get infinite developer certificate access, we in the jailbreak community would say "so what? that doesn't help us" and continue with business as usual.