Slashdot Mirror

Right. Because so many consumers, schools and businesses are buying Android tablets. [Nope. Not even close.

Meanwhile, the equally clueless marked your comment as insightful.

You do not "fein interest" in something by bidding a few billion dollars.

Do you play poker? Because the best bluffs are the ones made when there's lots of money at stake. Google has already feigned interest in the 700Mhz spectrum and forced the rest to accept an "open devices" policy.

It's not clear that's the way it rolled here (there's a lot of speculation as to what happened and when), but I wouldn't put it past the leadership in MV.

Regarding the quality of Moto's patent war chest, I think it definitely has value... Moto's key patents on the cell phone operations are very valuable, and the sheer number of the remainder of patents are also not to be ignored.

I like how another ./er put it: "shit just got real"... it will be interesting to see how this plays out and whether Google has grander plans for Moto than just the patents.

Someone proposed this concept last year, but unfortunately I don't think anyone's actually selling it: http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/02/cork-mouse-charges-itself/

they had tv footage and everything

for awhile he was like "i'm going to blow up, i'm going to blow up". then towards then end he basically just gave up and accepted what was coming. pretty sad. the bomb squad was still being assembled: boom, right on the side of the road, surrounded by cops. i guess many thought it was a fake until then

thank god for hollywood, which had to turn it into a comedy >/sarcasm<

http://www.wired.com/underwire/2011/08/30-minutes-or-less-collar-bom/

as a matter of timing, you wonder if the movie inspired this australian idiot. reading about the plot in the newspaper (i don't think movie came out yet when this idiotic plot went down)

you know you are a genuine idiot, when a comedy about feeble idiots trying to cook up a feeble criminal plot, inspires you to actually try that real life

All these silly things are keeping Android from being a serious competitor to the iPhone

What world do you live in?

Techcrunch

Wired

Tested

NetworkWorld

By growing his bamboo bicycle frame into the shape he wants. Fairly cool!

http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2008/09/growing-bamboo/

Might as well be a new meme for the crazies such as yourself who just toss the name around and don't even know what you're whining about.

Yeah, I know. Crazies like me never know what they're talking about.

Tim Berners-Lee in Wired, March 1997

Do you wish you'd started the Web as a business?
 
If I'd started "Web Inc." it would have been just another proprietary system. You wouldn't have had this universality. For something like the Web to exist, it has to be based on public, nonproprietary standards.

PS: That's Sir Tim Berners-Lee to you, bub. :-)

>>I hate to go all wikipedia on you, but [citation needed].
>>You have no proof of how the police would act, or that they would treat you any differently to the way they treated Apple other than your baseless ranting.

"Microsoft and Adobe are members of REACTâ(TM)s steering committee, a group of 25 companies that includes Apple Inc., Symantec Corp., KLA-Tencor Inc., Applied Materials Inc. and Cisco Systems Inc., and acts as a liaison between industry and law enforcement."
http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2009/05/18/story2.html

"The steering committee shall, at a minimum, meet quarterly to review task force activities, and provide advice, recommendations, strategic input and direction for task force consideration."
http://publicintelligence.net/rapid-enforcement-allied-computer-team-react-task-force/

"The federal Privacy Protection Act prohibits the government from seizing materials from journalists and others who possess material for the purpose of communicating to the public. The government cannot seize material from the journalist even if itâ(TM)s investigating whether the person who possesses the material committed a crime by receiving or possessing the material"

Yet they broke down his front door and "Among the items seized from Chenâ(TM)s house were four computers and two servers, an iPhone, digital cameras, records from a Bank of America checking account and the printout of an e-mail sent to Chen from Gawker Media Managing Editor Gaby Darbyshire earlier that day. The e-mail referred to Californiaâ(TM)s shield law and specifically stated that police cannot use a search warrant against a journalist to identify a confidential source, or obtain notes and other unpublished information from a news story."
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/04/iphone-raid/

http://old.news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts1795

>>Being or not being an Apple fanboy here is not relevant - we're discussing the police and their role in investigating crime and executing warrants.

It's clear you think that Apple can do no wrong, and are not at all bothered they have a paramilitary police force (that is breaking federal law) at their beck-and-call that kicks down journalists doors.

Written by someone who was born the year the computer came out.

Hands-On With the IBM 5150, Thirty Years Later

You know what's even more dangerous? That alternating current! That shit can kill an elephant -- See for yourself!

It's good that you tested to see what was going on. But I imagine you used Google services and contacted Google servers. That means information can be tracked about you without leaving markers on your local computer (see here and here). And I'm sure Google's own browser will be sure to act in ways that are standard and don't hinder this. Google is certainly opposed to the 'Do Not Track' flag.

Google is very open about what they believe in and that's not a lot of privacy or anonymity. In 2009 Eric Schmidt said "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.". And their actions re Google+ effectively shows them agreeing with Facebook's Randi Zuckerberg who recently said "I think anonymity on the Internet has to go away.". And 97% of their revenue is from advertising, selling what they know about all of us.

Google wants to know *everything* about us. They want as much of that data to be as good as possible. And the WiFi data gathering and other events show that if there's a chance to get information, they get it, record it, and correlate it with what else they have. There appears to be no decision to limit what they get unless they violate statues and are found to have done so.

I believe in my controlling my privacy, being public and being anonymous as I decide circumstances dictate. I limit my interactions with Google as much as possible. Despite their good works (and there are a lot of them) they have a core philosophy that is just wrong.

It's good that you tested to see what was going on. But I imagine you used Google services and contacted Google servers. That means information can be tracked about you without leaving markers on your local computer (see here and here). And I'm sure Google's own browser will be sure to act in ways that are standard and don't hinder this. Google is certainly opposed to the 'Do Not Track' flag.

Google is very open about what they believe in and that's not a lot of privacy or anonymity. In 2009 Eric Schmidt said "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.". And their actions re Google+ effectively shows them agreeing with Facebook's Randi Zuckerberg who recently said "I think anonymity on the Internet has to go away.". And 97% of their revenue is from advertising, selling what they know about all of us.

Google wants to know *everything* about us. They want as much of that data to be as good as possible. And the WiFi data gathering and other events show that if there's a chance to get information, they get it, record it, and correlate it with what else they have. There appears to be no decision to limit what they get unless they violate statues and are found to have done so.

I believe in my controlling my privacy, being public and being anonymous as I decide circumstances dictate. I limit my interactions with Google as much as possible. Despite their good works (and there are a lot of them) they have a core philosophy that is just wrong.

I think it's more insidious than that. This is yet one more situation politicians can use to force their intrusion into the lives of the unwashed masses. It's an excuse to pass all sorts of regulations. And not just to muscle in and watch everything that you type into your electronic devices. I wouldn't be surprised if someone proposes something to allow the politicians to shut down these devices when they want to. It may not come out of this specific incident. However, this kind of attitude towards government control over communication networks has already been proposed more than once in the US. It's only a matter of time before politicians in the UK get it into their heads that they want to have control over more and more of the telecommunications used by their constituents.

The thing is, so many of them propose new restrictions and new intrusions into people's lives when the people are reeling from a traumatic event like this. I'd like to think that they don't scheme and plan for exploiting events like this but it always happens. They'll get on the idiot box and preach all about how "all this could have been prevented if we only could have [insert overreaching government intrusion into life that wouldn't have done squat to stop whatever just happened]." And the legions of people who hate thinking beyond their next meal will lap up whatever the politician says because they vaguely remember that politicians making some campaign promises that they liked. Never mind that the politician never acted on the promises...

So eventually the laws will pass. But we'll still see riots. And the politicians will move onto the next topic that has nothing to do with the cause of the riots and figure out another way to leverage themselves further into the business of their constituents.

Ultrasurf was developed to evade the Great Firewall of China. I would not be surprised if Turkey is getting consultation from China. There is a wired article at http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/11/ff_firewallfighters/

A good starting point for UltraSurf and some of the other options is a consortium of several organizations including the folks behind gTunnel which is at:
http://www.internetfreedom.org/

Their web site has not been updated very recently, but I don't know how the individual organizations are doing.

Commuters from suburbs impose significant costs when they drive into the city. For instance, traffic planners have determined that the maginal cost of the average person deciding to drive into the Central Business District of Manhattan costs New York City residents $128.

What's absurd is the concept that people whose crappy, selfish lifestyle decisions impose insane costs upon others shouldn't have those costs brought to bear upon them instead. Rising gas prices have barely encouraged people to stop purchasing millions of miniaturized monster trucks — demand-based tolls to access highly-trafficked areas stands a better chance. And it offsets some of the costs back onto the people who impose them in the first place.

I don't think Telex is the right approach, but it offers one important benefit over the proxy approach: deniability. It may be true that regimes don't block all proxies. But if they decide to check up on you, they can see that you are using one of the censorship evasion proxies and punish you. With Telex, it appears that you are communicating with a legitimate web site; the only way to know otherwise is to crack the encryption and see that there's a message intended for Telex.

Getting help from ISPs isn't the only way to accomplish that. For example, if you could convince major players on the internet to run Telex-like systems _on their own machines_, then a user would have deniability because they could claim they were using the legitimate services on those machines. E.g. this might be a nice thing to put Google's 900,000 servers to work on, and would be a nice payback for last year's China hacking scandal.. Or something that all American universities could do in the name of free speech. The obvious way to block such a system would be to block the hosting site, but that may force the censor to cut off access to useful material (e.g. the teaching content on American university sites).

But it doesn't stop there; a censor could set up an SSL proxy and force all https traffic through it, which would allow them to decrypt any communication and look for suspicious side-requests. That's why we built a system a few years ago that disguises the subversive request in plain sight as a sequence of standard web browsing requests (and hides the response in images), without relying on SSL at all.

Wired reported on this a few days ago (and there was a Slashdot article about related information at the time, too), noting that Paypal handed over the information last December.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/07/op_payback/

Everybody knows you are not supposed to feed trolls!!

But I disagree. The purpose of a troll is to write comments that will incite anger and inflamed responses. This is not my purpose. I have my own individual beliefs that Google is becoming one of the most evil companies out there, which I am wanting to promote. If you have a different opinion and actually believe Google is a genuine nice guy I feel sorry for you.

There is more and more mounting evidence that Google has major privacy violation issues. Take the Do Not Track feature that all major browsers apart from Chrome are supporting http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2011/04/chrome-do-not-track/

Google is not about mutual advantages between itself and the FOSS community. Google is about making money selling advertising and attacking any and all companies who might stand in the way of their prized revenue stream. They use FOSS to destabilize who technology sectors so their advertising tentacles can spread like a virus, unabated. They have no regard for personal privacy and no regard for obeying laws in large numbers of countries throughout the world. They are one very scary company, to which people need to open their eyes and wake up to. If Google is not answerable to the users personal privacy and they are not answerable to sovereign laws regarding to IP rights, just who the hell are they answerable to?

While it isn't false that users in repressive regimes have an obvious interest in privacy, the notion that the feds are your primary concern is so hopelessly naive that I almost find it hard to believe that it isn't purposefully deceptive.

So, let's look at the social-networking life of your average resident of a Not-Repressive(tm) contemporary society: The secret police aren't going to be bashing down the door for saying the wrong thing, so nothing to worry about, eh? Well, yeah, not exactly...

Except that sometimes, even in Not-Repressive(tm) societies, it *is* the secret police (in the form of a three letter agency) bashing down the door for saying the wrong thing because of some dumbass "analyst" decided that they could "find teh 3v1l hax0rs" by aggregating social media data. Someone I know had all of their electronic equipment taken by a three letter agency after months of making Facebook posts that were sympathetic to Anonymous and WikiLeaks. Call me paranoid, but I don't think that that is a coincidence at all.

Yeah, about that...

Granted, it'll stop John Q. Idiot from getting your data, but if you actually care about data encryption/safety in the first place, John Q. Idiot probably isn't the person you're afraid of. In the real world, there are very few people who need truly secure phones considering that the majority of the data on them is their calendar reminding them to pick up their daughter from school, their contacts list and Angry Birds. A good number of people who claim they want that security generally think what they have on their phone is more important than it really is (or they don't want their wives/girlfriends to find out about the affair they're having.) Only a slim number of people actually need that much security on their phones... and they, wisely, use Blackberries.

It's not exactly hard to just change your passwords in the event your phone gets stolen and they have access to saved banking information (WHY DO YOU HAVE THAT SAVED ON A PHONE?!), Paypal information (more plausible) or Apple Store/Android Market information.

I agree with reading about it on the Internet. I like RSS, but I've found it homogenizes my content so that things don't jump out at me and the really interesting stories get buried with all the mediocre ones. So I keep the following list of bookmarks to check on a weekly basis:

ABC (Australia) Science, ABC (US) Science, Air & Space Magazine, ARKive, Ars Technica, BBC SciTech News, CBS Sci-Tech News, Chet Raymo, Cosmos News, Current: Science, Discover, Discovery News, Edge, Economist Science, EurekAlert!, Flyp media, Futurity, h+, Inkling Magazine, LiveScience, Massimo Pigliucci, Mother Jones Environment, MSNBC Science News, National Geographic News, National Public Radio (US), Natural History Magazine, New Scientist, New York Times Science, New Yorker Science, Newsweek Science, Orion, PhysOrg, Popular Mechanics, Popular Science, R&D Magazine, Ripley's Believe It or Not!, Science Daily, Scientific American, Seed Magazine, Science Cheerleader, Science News, Schrodinger's Kitten, Slashdot Science, Smithsonian, Space.com, The Technium, Time Magazine Science, USA Today Science, US News & World Report Science, Wired News, World Changing

I've thrown all the feeds from each of these sites into Google Reader. In no particular order:

wired.com
slashdot.org
spectrum.ieee.org
scientistscanvas.com
arxiv.org
techcrunch.com
techdirt.com
news.discovery.com
physicsworld.com
newscientist.com
physorg.com
nationalgeographic.com
scienceblog.com

I have plenty more. Any RSS feeder app works. You get some repeats but there's a constant stream of science news.

But they just said it was due to sports.

So, which is it?

As that article notes, you need physical access to the device. Not just being able to run software n the device, actual physical access to pull out the system keys.

You might need physical access to jailbreak it. Or you might not - there have been remote jailbreaks before. You don't need physical access to run software once you have jailbroken the phone and installed a backdoor. Note that in the Wired article they use SSH to retrieve the decrypted disk data.

A few months ago: APPLE STORED YOUR LOCATION DATA IN PLAIN TEXT!!! HOW STUPID ARE THEY? THE ONLY EXPLANATION IS THEY ARE TRACKING YOU!!! PEOPLE WILL BE STALKED USING THIS!!!

People (including many iPhone owners) were upset because Apple was storing location data at all, not because it wasn't encrypted.

Somehow, the OS X and iOS keychain manages to use encryption to protect passwords

Keychain stored passwords are encrypted using a key derived from data on the device. Encrypting data and storing the encrypted data on the phone along with the decryption key provides no security benefits - apparently it's trivial to extract Keychain passwords once you have software running as root on the device, link: "The attack works because the cryptographic key on current iOS devices is based on material available within the device and is independent of the passcode"

the entire disk on iOS (after the 3GS, I think, maybe the 3G) is encrypted, and processes are blocked from reading files outside of their sandbox.

Wired says different: Hacker Says iPhone 3GS Encryption Is ‘Useless’ for Businesses:

'Apple claims that hundreds of thousands of iPhones are being used by corporations and government agencies. What it won’t tell you is that the supposedly enterprise-friendly encryption included with the iPhone 3GS is so weak it can be cracked in two minutes with a few pieces of readily available freeware. “It is kind of like storing all your secret messages right next to the secret decoder ring,” said Jonathan Zdziarski, an iPhone developer and a hacker who teaches forensics courses on recovering data from iPhones. “I don’t think any of us [developers] have ever seen encryption implemented so poorly before, which is why it’s hard to describe why it’s such a big threat to security.'

For instance, how are we going to prevent small groups of people from doing ungodly amounts of real harm (via violence) as the means to do that becomes more and more easy to access. Just look at Bill Joy's now-famous essay - "Why The Future Doesn't Need Us", written some years ago, to get a clear idea where we're headed http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy_pr.html.

The key here is that all surveillance activity that takes place in a Democratic society *must* be transparent. You and I should be able to know when , where, for how long, for what reason, and by whom we have been the subject of surveillance *on demand*.

Two additional problems, yet to be solved accompany the coming of universal surveillance:

1) Massive retraining and transparent accountability of *all* persons involved in surveillance, with harsh penalties dolled out for abuse.

2) Keeping the most dangerous among us from knowing how and when they are subjects of surveillance. This is a complex problem, because it also deals with the "mission creep" of those who are governing surveillance systems, because they get to decide what and who is considered "dangerous". Thus, the absolute importance of #!, above.

Again, I don't like the idea of being watched; I don't like the idea of being groped at an airport; or, taking my shoes off before I board a plane; or, being made the subject of search based on nationality or skin color; or, the chilling impact that comes from having certain kinds of speech assumed as "terrorist", if they're clearly not intended to be so.

We are approaching a time when we *must* make ourselves aware of the impending trend toward universal surveillance - because it *is* going to happen. The advantage we have in a Democratic culture is to insist on and legislate transparency, and do everything we can to insure that abuses are not institutionalized, and kept to an absolute minimum, otherwise.

Did you really think $9.99/mo for 1 DVD at a time + all the streaming content you can eat was going to last forever? Those are *startup* prices. They do that to grow the business, then they jack up the prices when they need to be profitable.

Bzzt, wrong. Netflix already was profitable.

The very well written story How Digital Detectives Deciphered Stuxnet, the Most Menacing Malware in History on Wired.com describes an attack on an Iranian nuclear plant through inserting frequency changing commands sent to the PLC to damage centrifuges. The papers the OP mentioned are probably something very important if encrypted FPGA bit streams can indeed be meaningfully tampered with easily.

And the curiously erroneous results.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/03/tsa-radiation-test-bungling/

Actually, google originally utilized aircraft photography from assorted surveyors (NOAA, USAF, etc). However three years ago they helped launch what was at the time the worlds most powerful imaging satellite. While not the primary users, I'm pretty sure they take it for a spin every now and then.

I'm not actually american, and making the american military more effective is not necessarily in my interests. Just would be sorta nice for more of that incredibly vast american military expenditure to be going towards improving free and open source software, which improves the world, not just america.

That would mean more money available for bombs to drop on you. Instead, push for Windows For Warships and you can watch us tow our destroyers out of your harbors on Patch Tuesdays.

I think the big problem is that in the USA, you will need to build flying Humvees to get this idea accepted. Anything smaller will be seen as an insult to American integrity, and not safe on the roads

Way ahead of you: DARPA's Flying humvee

True, different perspectives help, and there have been plenty of times in history where one person sees a project as failed and another sees that failure as a new invention / discovery, but there are also a lot of people making the same mistakes as others and wasting time doing so. What might be really useful in this 'budget crunch' is a compendium of failed science as Wired called for back in 2007. If we document our failures, we can learn from each others' mistakes without having to spend the money to duplicate them as often.

This isn't the first time Swartz has spidered a site in order to download the content hosted there. In 2009, he went after the PACER system which hosts court records. While those are public documents, they're behind a per-page paywall. His python script was probably reused from before, just s/pacer.gov/jstor.org/g. See: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/10/swartz-fbi/

When you're the creator of the Open Library project, liberating a few million articles from behind a rather expensive paywall is, at the very least, quite circumstantially indicative of what your intentions might be. While I personally think access to such document repositories for scientific journals is priced way too high, most people can go to public or university libraries to do any research they might want to do. Breaking into a wiring closet, getting MIT's access to JSTOR cut off for days, spoofing your MAC address, getting shut off, spoofing your MAC address again, and still continuing on downloading is not the way to go about trying to affect change the way he wanted to. Smart kid buried under an avalanche of dumb.

"It is also pointed out that DNS filtering does not actually keep determined users from accessing content, as they can still access non-filtered DNS servers or directly enter the blocked site's IP address if it is known."

Obviously that's why they call it the "PROTECT-IP" act, because IP addresses will still work fine :-) :-)

Calling such users "determined" is kind of like calling the people who held the shift key down to avoid audio CD DRM elite hackers. But you're not supposed to tell any of this to the fools trying to implement this stuff!

japan is 100 million (and you HAVE to have advanced gadgetry there - cellular phones that cannot display tv broadcasts dont sell - that includes apple's iphones http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/02/why-the-iphone/ ),

You quote a 2 year old article that was discredited back then? http://www.tuaw.com/2011/05/18/the-iphone-4-sales-ranking-in-japan/ "Even in cell phone crazed Japan, the iPhone 4 is the top-selling handset according to a report from market research firm GfK Japan. Data from the first quarter of 2011 shows the 16 GB and 32 GB models in first and second place, respectively."

Not that any of this has to do with the Mac's market share. Which also grows internationally.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/07/video-israeli-landspeeder-sorta-takes-flight/

You're going for the overly semantic argument - you know damn well that the OP was talking about the fact that everyone uses the Tritone sound.

That wasn't what I was talking about actually. If you notice, I wrote

"You want your iphone to play something besides the 6 included tones for a text message alert?"

6 preset options is nothing when nearly every other smartphone, and even many dumbphones, your options are infinite.

Also, Apple charges for iOS updates? Wow. That's news to me! Where did you find that bit of exclusive, new information?

It does appear I was outdated. They did charge for OS updates at one point, and I was sure I heard that initially iOS4 would cost, but Wiki informs me that as of OS4, apple was no longer charging for updates. I'm not sure if the ipad is included in that or if that too is outdated. But you're right. I maligned apple, they appear to have realized that charging for software updates is abusive, I'm so sorry I assumed that because they had sinned once, they would sin again.

Anybody else remember the Green Card Lottery Spam all over USENET. Good times. Canter & Siegel...

Faking a policy identity will probably be highly illegal if policy do have a unique identifier they could broadcast. Just like even having possession of a box that can change a red stoplight to be green is illegal. Or maybe it would be considered impersonating an officer, which is probably worse if you get caught.

Genetic resistance to AIDS works in different ways and appears in different ethnic groups. The most powerful form of resistance, caused by a genetic defect, is limited to people with European or Central Asian heritage. An estimated 1 percent of people descended from Northern Europeans are virtually immune to AIDS infection, with Swedes the most likely to be protected. One theory suggests that the mutation developed in Scandinavia and moved southward with Viking raiders.

http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/news/2005/01/66198

=Smidge=

http://www.infowars.com/calls-for-tsa-chiefs-head-as-agency-now-denies-it-forced-removal-of-adult-diaper/
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2007/07/tsa-undermining/

etc...

It's just time for the TSA to go, next wannabe bomber to pull a razor blade on a US airplane will probably get thrown out the emergency door.

In 2002 he took a job with an antispam firm, which was gobbled up by Symantec soon afterwards. O Murchu eventually transferred to the corporate giant's Culver City office, leaving Dublin for Southern California.

The article is absolutely riddled with praise like that.

Seth Johnsnon

Great read about lamo. There was a lot more, but I can't seem to find it.

This is old news... Yet Slashdot mysteriously won't cover the story about the unredacted Manning/Lamo chat logs that just came out.
In fact, Google has completely censored it from their news/rss aggregators.

japan is 100 million (and you HAVE to have advanced gadgetry there - cellular phones that cannot display tv broadcasts dont sell - that includes apple's iphones http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/02/why-the-iphone/ ),

You meant that included> Apple's iPhones; as the Wired article notes in an update at the end, Apple fixed the problems that got in the iPhone's way in Japan.

[...] japan is 100 million (and you HAVE to have advanced gadgetry there - cellular phones that cannot display tv broadcasts dont sell - that includes apple's iphones http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/02/why-the-iphone/ )

You might want to check your sources: http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/09/02/28/japanese_hate_for_iphone_all_a_big_mistake.html http://mashable.com/2009/07/04/iphone-japan/

or is it some marketing hype in order to make the stocks in nasdaq move ?

I don't think AAPL really needs this kind of help. Selling a crapload of high-profit stuff seems to work well enough for them.

The only thing i am not understanding is why are the tech magazines online are making that great fuss over the results of one company only over its U.S. sales.

if u.s. is a market of 300 million, china is a market of 1.5 bn. japan is 100 million (and you HAVE to have advanced gadgetry there - cellular phones that cannot display tv broadcasts dont sell - that includes apple's iphones http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/02/why-the-iphone/ ), the market that is india is another 1 bn, the market that is europe is another approx 500 mn.

and all these markets have either huge volume, or high purchasing power.

and yet, this much stampede is being made over apple reaching 10% share in american market - so much that one would think apple conquered all markets.

or is it some marketing hype in order to make the stocks in nasdaq move ?

This Wired article is very long but very informative and it's worth the time to read it:

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/4.12/ffglass_pr.html