Meet Two Security Researchers Apple Hates (Video)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Meet Two Security Researchers Apple Hates (Video)

Posted by Roblimo on Friday September 21, 2012 @02:51AM from the my-exploits-are-better-than-yours dept.

This video is a half-hour speech given by Dino Dai Zovi and Charlie Miller, two people Apple corporately hates because of their success in finding security holes in Apple operating systems and software. Both Charlie and Dino have been mentioned on Slashdot before and probably will be again. This is a chance to see how they sound and look in person, talking to a small "by invitation only" group. They have a book to push, too: The iOS Hacker's Handbook. (Please note that this book is supposed to help you secure iOS and iOS apps, not exploit security holes in them.)

146 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Silly and inflammatory by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-21 02:56 · Score: 5, Insightful

Seriously... why the inflammatory headline? other than creating link bait. Why would Apple hate them? They're doing the R&D on security for them...
1. Re:Silly and inflammatory by Cutting_Crew · 2012-09-21 02:57 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  well Charlie did get banned from the app store for 1 year for finding a security hole. Perhaps they dont hate him but they got pretty miffed at him.
2. Re:Silly and inflammatory by SquarePixel · 2012-09-21 02:59 · Score: 1
  
  Charlie and Dino sounds like some kids adventure movie. What's up with that?
3. Re:Silly and inflammatory by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-21 03:02 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  Yes, because he did so without their permission and violated the ToS. That hardly means they hate him. Only a moron would think that someone is just going to welcome you with open arms when you do stuff they explicitly didn't approve.
4. Re:Silly and inflammatory by aristotle-dude · 2012-09-21 03:03 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  well Charlie did get banned from the app store for 1 year for finding a security hole. Perhaps they dont hate him but they got pretty miffed at him.
  No, he was banned because he deliberately violated the terms of the appstore by creating a tool that collected end user information instead of disclosing the issue to apple.
  
  --
  Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
5. Re:Silly and inflammatory by jo_ham · 2012-09-21 03:03 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Actually he got banned for breaking the store terms and conditions, not for discovering a security hole.
  The headline is just linkbait - Apple does not hate people who discover security holes in its software, it's quite the opposite. They take time to mention and thank people who find specific bugs in their security update notes and have been doing for many years when they close that particular hole.
6. Re:Silly and inflammatory by i+kan+reed · 2012-09-21 03:04 · Score: 1
  
  Isn't this anti-competitive behavior?
7. Re:Silly and inflammatory by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-21 03:08 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  "Why would Apple hate them"
  uh, maybe because Apple likes to keep any of its security issues quiet rather than watch these two guys publicly expose iPhone issues the way the entire open-source Android developer community does for Android Phones. What these two guys are doing is contrary to the walled-garden business model that is Apples creed.
8. Re:Silly and inflammatory by Desler · 2012-09-21 03:08 · Score: 1
  
  No. It's not. He violated the App Store ToS and got banned from the service. How exactly is that 'anti-competitive behavior'?
9. Re:Silly and inflammatory by jellomizer · 2012-09-21 03:13 · Score: 1
  
  Because there is a good portion of people who do not understand, it is not what you do but how you do it.
  There is a fine line of being a companies best friend and worst enemy. It just goes on to how you approach a problem.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
10. Re:Silly and inflammatory by Cutting_Crew · 2012-09-21 03:14 · Score: 1
  
  then they should have said, "hey i know that we have these rules but these guys helped us out so we are going to give them a one time pass" "Charlie next time please work with us if you have a security hole and we will even give you a temporary account to play around with things to confirm or not future security holes". Wouldnt that have been the 'right thing' to do??
11. Re:Silly and inflammatory by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-21 03:24 · Score: 0
  
  It is anti-competitive to take 30% of the revenue of every 3rd party application for a device.
12. Re:Silly and inflammatory by toriver · 2012-09-21 03:28 · Score: 1
  
  How do you figure that taking a percentage for selling a good - which practically every fucking store in the whole fucking world does - is "anti-competitive"? Are you new to this we call "the real world"?
13. Re:Silly and inflammatory by Dog-Cow · 2012-09-21 03:28 · Score: 1
  
  You are anti-competitive when you breath air and eat food someone else could have used. I think you should kill yourself since you seem to feel that anti-competitive behavior is wrong.
14. Re:Silly and inflammatory by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-21 03:36 · Score: 0
  
  Not really, I'd say that actually spurs competition.
  If Apple is doing something that's "way too expensive," then the opportunity exists for a lower-cost competitor to come along and do the same-or-better job as Apple, at a lower price.
  For instance Google, with its Android system, could do so, and offer a very compelling alternative: access to a massive installed user base for their very capable mobile operating system, and Google SURELY does it cheaper than their main competitor! And since Google is so free and open, competing stores can open as well! And they can compete with Google to sell apps for Android devices, even cheaper than Google does.
  Oh right, Google still takes 30%, and threatens people who are remotely successful at creating a viable competitive service (*cough* did someone say Acer?) with freezing them out of the Android ecosystem entirely. Because if you're in the OHA, you have to play by the rules, which are, whatever the fuck Google says they are at the moment, and are typically changed to suit whatever suits Google's bottom line best.
15. Re:Silly and inflammatory by Americano · 2012-09-21 03:40 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Funny thing is, at about 50 seconds into the video, Charlie says, "The good thing about Apple is, it's only a 1 year ban, where I'm banned from Google for... lifetime."
  Huh, imagine that. I guess Google must "corporately hate these guys" even more than Apple!
16. Re:Silly and inflammatory by bhagwad · 2012-09-21 03:40 · Score: 1
  
  Probably because you can't buy that good from anywhere except that one store. That's pretty anti competitive.
17. Re:Silly and inflammatory by UnknowingFool · 2012-09-21 03:40 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe because his app was basically spyware and Apple's policies specifically forbid that. While Charlie Miller didn't use his app for evil purposes, it was still against the developer agreement.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
18. Re:Silly and inflammatory by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-21 03:41 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  This is bull shit. Apple has a strict process for vetting apps after they've been submitted to the iTunes store.
  I don't think that anyone(or at least people that know about security) is amazed at someone having the ability to write a malicious app that can run unsigned code. It's really not that big a deal. What Apple has been excellent at is screening out those apps before they ever make it somewhere that a user could install them.
  He was banned for publishing this app to the iTunes store. How else is he supposed to determine if there's a security hole other than having it go through the normal process to end up in the iTunes market? Should he send this code to Apple directly and say "Hey, I'm a security analyst trying to discover a security hole. Would this App pass your inspection process to get into your consumer store?"
  This was the only way that he could truly prove the vulnerability.
19. Re:Silly and inflammatory by interkin3tic · 2012-09-21 03:41 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Yes, because he did so without their permission and violated the ToS. That hardly means they hate him. Only a moron would think that someone is just going to welcome you with open arms when you do stuff they explicitly didn't approve.
  Gasp! He violated the sacred ToS and revealed to the world that apple's walled garden isn't going to keep out all malware?!? NO!!!! It was perfect before, he obviously broke it! BURN HIM!!!
  
  Only a moronic company would punish someone for pointing out a security problem to them. The lesson Apple appears to have been trying to teach Charlie is that the next time he discovers a security hole in the app store, he should sell that information to criminals.
20. Re:Silly and inflammatory by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-21 03:44 · Score: 0
  
  Let's put it plain and simple.
  If they publish the exploit, they are trying to get you to respond.
  At no point is it ever acceptable to punish those who are telling you "FIX YOUR SHIT" when they are literally doing your job for you of showing you what to fix.
21. Re:Silly and inflammatory by Americano · 2012-09-21 03:46 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Only a moronic company would punish someone for pointing out a security problem to them.
  You do realize that Google banned him for life, whereas Apple only banned him for a year... right?
  May we safely conclude that you hate Google and their products with the fiery intensity of a thousand supernovas, given your screed about Apple?
22. Re:Silly and inflammatory by Cutting_Crew · 2012-09-21 03:48 · Score: 1
  
  also the license for Android development is $25. One time. not every year. So there is some incentive then lets say $99 per year(and even an extra $99 for a separate mac osx license)
23. Re:Silly and inflammatory by jo_ham · 2012-09-21 03:49 · Score: 0
  
  You forgot to log in.
24. Re:Silly and inflammatory by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-21 03:53 · Score: 1
  
  Wrong.
  He created an app that could load unsigned code downloaded from a third-party server. The video he demonstrated showed his stock app downloading the iPhone equivalent of Metasploit's Meterpreter, which is a remote access tool.
  The only phone that ever downloaded this remote access tool was his own phone.
  Truth on the internet.
25. Re:Silly and inflammatory by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-21 03:55 · Score: 1
  
  Really?
  If Target commissions a set of exclusive lines of furniture and clothing, to be sold only in their store... that's anti-competitive?
  If I can't get a Big Mac at a Burger King, or a Whopper at McDonald's... that's anti-competitive?
  If Microsoft's online store won't sell me Firefox, and Mozilla's online store won't sell me Microsoft Windows 7... that's anti-competitive?
  If Chrome's online store won't offer me the Safari browser... that's anti-competitive?
  If I can't go into a Toyota dealership and demand they sell me a brand new Ford Focus... that's anti-competitive?
  I think you don't know what anti-competitive means, and you should probably go back and think about it some more before you post again. Maybe get your mom to make you a pb&j sandwich with the crust cut off just like you love, too.
26. Re:Silly and inflammatory by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-21 03:59 · Score: 0
  
  You forgot to log in so we could mod your comment down for being an obvious Crapple iSheep
27. Re:Silly and inflammatory by UnknowingFool · 2012-09-21 04:14 · Score: 1
  
  I can't get AIX but from IBM on an IBM machine. Is that anti-competitive?
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
28. Re:Silly and inflammatory by bhagwad · 2012-09-21 04:18 · Score: 1
  
  In most of your cases, (like Target commissioning), they own the products. Third party developers and their software are not owned by Apple. Like McDonald's owns Big Mac. Apple does not "own" my iOS app. Chrome selling safari? That's like selling Android on the app marketplace. How can you even compare? Apps are not a competitor to Apple or iOS. At all.
  
  Your attempt to defend Apple is just sad.
29. Re:Silly and inflammatory by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-21 04:48 · Score: 1
  
  In most of your cases, (like Target commissioning), they own the products.
  No, they don't. In most cases, they are licensed from another company for "exclusive sale at Target." And even THAT isn't anti-competitive - because other stores can go out and negotiate similar licensing deals with other companies for their own retail locations. Apple isn't forcing developers to pay them money, they aren't forcing them to sign exclusivity agreements, they're saying, "This is my store. If you want to sell a product it in my store, I get a 30% cut of the sale price."
  Do you think a grocery store "owns" that package of ramen noodles they're selling? Do you feel that it's your right to demand that that package of ramen noodles be sold anywhere you could imaginably wish to buy it? Stores are allowed to make decisions about what products they'll sell, how they'll sell them, and what terms they'll sell them under.
  That's not anti-competitive, no matter how you try to paint it as such. There are multiple mobile platforms you could develop for - many app developers do so. If you don't like the 30% cut Apple takes, you're welcome to put your app on other stores elsewhere, and forego access to the iOS platform, or write a web app instead of a native app for iOS users. You could even go so far as to build your own mobile platform and compete with Apple in the iOS space directly.
  But since this is Slashdot, I expect you'll mostly just bitch and moan about the successes of other people while expending no effort to accomplish anything of note on your own. Yes, Apple's 30% cut is the reason you're not a millionaire. Not your own inability to deliver a product people want to buy - it's never YOUR fault.
30. Re:Silly and inflammatory by UnknowingFool · 2012-09-21 05:00 · Score: 1
  
  I wasn't aware that Converse was owned by Target. From wikipedia:
  
  Target has many exclusive deals with various designers and name-brands, including Michael Graves, Isaac Mizrahi, Mossimo Giannulli, Fiorucci, Liz Lange, and Converse among others.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
31. Re:Silly and inflammatory by jhoegl · 2012-09-21 05:06 · Score: 1
  
  Quick, give them a time traveling phone booth!
32. Re:Silly and inflammatory by whosdat · 2012-09-21 05:35 · Score: 2
  
  I've searched for many different combinations of "charlie miller", "banned", "google" and "playstore", but all I found was his ban from Apple and his research on NFC and Playstore bouncer vulnerabilites. Is there something I've missed?
33. Re:Silly and inflammatory by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-21 05:38 · Score: 0
  
  So, when you fantasize about sucking Steve Jobs' zombie dick, is it before or after you've been fucked in the ass with it?
34. Re:Silly and inflammatory by bhagwad · 2012-09-21 05:49 · Score: 1
  
  The point is that target has a special exclusive relationship with those products. It's exclusive to them. In the case of the iPhone, the customer owns the device. They want to put something on it...where exactly does apple come in?
  "they aren't forcing them to sign exclusivity agreements"
  But the exclusivity is technologically enforced.
  Ramen can sell it's noodles anywhere else. Not just target. But where can an iOS developer sell his/her iOS programs? Nowhere else.
  Suppose that Microsoft had to approve every program that runs on Windows. Would you be happy about it?
35. Re:Silly and inflammatory by whosdat · 2012-09-21 05:50 · Score: 2
  
  Ah, missed it at 50 seconds in the video, but still can't find any details. Their blog post on Bouncer hack mentions they've "been in touch with the Android security team and will be working with them to address some of the problems weâ(TM)ve discovered" and their NFC hack didn't need any Google account at all. May be someone can find more?
36. Re:Silly and inflammatory by thoughtlover · 2012-09-21 05:52 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  I found this:
  Dr. Miller admits to being banned from the Google app store as well. In fact Miller's wife was also recently denied a developer account by the Google Play Store.
  here: http://www.ethicalhacker.net/content/view/438/1/
  
  --
  No sig for you! Come back one year!
37. Re:Silly and inflammatory by interkin3tic · 2012-09-21 05:54 · Score: 1
  
  Depends on if and why they banned him. I can't find anything to suggest they have. If they did, why? Was it for reporting a flaw in their security? Or did he actually do something wrong?
38. Re:Silly and inflammatory by whosdat · 2012-09-21 06:06 · Score: 1
  
  Ah, thanks. How did you find it? Because whatever I searched it showed me Apple's ban, Bouncer and NFC hack and Twitter's job offer, I even tried Bing in case Google plays dirty with this search terms. Now I only found this article by this specific wording "charlie miller denied google account", and still can't find it in first pages on Bing even this way
39. Re:Silly and inflammatory by UnknowingFool · 2012-09-21 06:15 · Score: 1
  
  What is stopping a developer from developing for any other platform besides/in addition to Apple? Absolutely nothing. To use their store and their platform, there are rules. If you don't like the rules, you can develop for someone else. Just because you don't like the rules doesn't mean that they are anti-competitive.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
40. Re:Silly and inflammatory by bhagwad · 2012-09-21 06:36 · Score: 1
  
  And if Microsoft insisted on "approving" every software that ran on a PC you would be ok with this? If not, then it's double standards.
  Also, for me this is less about legal/illegal and more about being an asshole.
41. Re:Silly and inflammatory by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-21 06:46 · Score: 0
  
  I can't get AIX but from IBM on an IBM machine.
  
  Here ya go... AIX from somewhere else, on non-IBM machine
42. Re:Silly and inflammatory by theurge14 · 2012-09-21 07:01 · Score: 1
  
  So like the OP said, he was banned because he deliberately violated the terms of the appstore by creating a tool that collected end user information instead of disclosing the issue to apple.
  Thanks.
43. Re:Silly and inflammatory by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-21 07:01 · Score: 0
  
  Huh... open Android where Google banned him for life? Gotta love that "open".
44. Re:Silly and inflammatory by BasilBrush · 2012-09-21 07:30 · Score: 1
  
  What's this? Suddenly getting reasonable when the target is Google rather than Apple?
45. Re:Silly and inflammatory by UnknowingFool · 2012-09-21 07:37 · Score: 1
  
  Hello? MS does have to approve apps on their WP7 apps store. Where have you been? Apples to apples comparison. Again no one is forcing you to abide by Apple's rules. You have choices.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
46. Re:Silly and inflammatory by interkin3tic · 2012-09-21 08:15 · Score: 1
  
  I disagreed with apple's reaction to him based on the details in article I read about that. I don't have any information on his dealings with google so I can't judge. Is there part of that that's unreasonable or am I supposed to automatically condemn all companies if I condemn one?
47. Re:Silly and inflammatory by BasilBrush · 2012-09-21 08:51 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  No, as I said, it's amazing how reasonable you have become now we find out Google issued a bigger ban than Apple did. It's a shame your original post was littered with shouting and multiple exclamation marks and sarcasm, and you didn't show your reasonable side from the outset.
  Now, just for fun, given that this is the very same security researcher, can you give me an example of what he could have done that would make Google's lifetime ban for him and his wife reasonable. (In the light of a 1 year ban for breaking ToS being unreasonable.)
48. Re:Silly and inflammatory by bhagwad · 2012-09-21 10:38 · Score: 1
  
  I didn't say anyone was forcing me to use Apple products. And I was talking about the PC market. Why should PCs and smartphones be any different? This is not about what's legal/illegal but about being jerks. Apple is being a jerk.
  Also, once the phone is purchased, it belongs to the customer. Ethically Apple should have no right to dictate what apps are installed on to it.
49. Re:Silly and inflammatory by xouumalperxe · 2012-09-21 10:42 · Score: 1
  
  If I rob a bank, out of my own initiative and without the consent of the owners, there's no reason why I should go to prison if my only purpose was to show the owners they had some security flaws. Right?
50. Re:Silly and inflammatory by Zero__Kelvin · 2012-09-21 12:30 · Score: 1
  
  Right. Like when someone commits an act of pre-meditated murder against a murderer. The law should say "Hey, I know he violated the law, but he helped us out, so we are going to give him a one time pass"
  
  "Wouldnt that have been the 'right thing' to do??"
  No. The right thing to do would be to follow standard full disclosure principles. What he did is the rough equivalent of releasing an exploit into the wild.
  
  --
  Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
51. Re:Silly and inflammatory by UnknowingFool · 2012-09-21 12:36 · Score: 1
  
  You compares what Apple is doing in smartphones with what MS is doing in computers when they are doing the exact same thing in smart phones. Thus you are not being fair. In computers, Apple does not require approval of your application unless you are using their online store. Since MS has no counterpart at the moment, you can't compare; however, it sounds like MS will be doing the same for Win 8 apps in the MS store. So basically your argument fails.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
52. Re:Silly and inflammatory by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-21 13:21 · Score: 0
  
  Ramen can sell it's noodles anywhere else. Not just target. But where can an iOS developer sell his/her iOS programs? Nowhere else.
  An iOS developer could quite happily write a web app that will run anywhere and avoid Apple's control entirely. They can also decide that they don't like Apple's restrictions, and write software for Android, WP7, Blackberries, or some other mobile phone, and skip selling to iOS users.
  
  Suppose that Microsoft had to approve every program that runs on Windows. Would you be happy about it.
  I wouldn't give even a single fuck, because I'm not a Windows user. And at present, I have at least 2 mainstream alternatives to Windows if Microsoft chose to do this and I found their rules draconian: Ubuntu, and Mac OS X. And one of those (Ubuntu) can't EVEN be locked down in the way you're suggesting Microsoft could, so that's always an option, even if Apple and Microsoft were to both, tomorrow, begin dictating who can and can't run software on their computers.
  The Target example still stands: If you want a pair of Converse shoes... you buy them at Target. If you want a pair of special replacement limited edition converse FancyBoy Laces to go with them... you buy it exclusively at Target. There are other ways of getting laces for your shoes, certainly - but if you want the officially-sanctioned Converse (tm) Brand laces... you go to Target. Same applies to iOS apps - you can jailbreak it (completely legally) and load your own apps as you see fit, or you can use a web interface instead of native, or you can even write your own apps and load them directly onto YOUR phone yourself. Or, if you don't like those restrictions, you can go and buy a different phone, with different developer rules, such as Android, BB, or WP7.
  Apple sells the limited app options as a feature, and it is, in large part - they provide some minimum level of vetting of the apps, and control, and their control also helps reduce the attractiveness of malware writers, because to get it on the store, you have to provide contact info and other data about yourself, which means if you're breaking the law... Apple has some idea of where to find you as a result.
  Now, I'll gladly concede that these restrictions mean the Apple devices aren't for you - but then, you have plenty of options that compete (heck, most Android fans here will tell you that Android easily *surpasses* iOS in functionality and capabilities) quite well against Apple devices, and to which many iOS applications are even ported as a fully functional alternative to the iOS device.
53. Re:Silly and inflammatory by Americano · 2012-09-21 13:33 · Score: 1
  
  http://twitter.com/0xcharlie/statuses/231200006038761472
  Result # 9 from the google search: "Charlie Miller Google Play Ban" from Mr. Miller's own twitter feed, in his own words. He was banned for, in his words, "being associated with Jon Oberheide" - one of the researchers who discovered a flaw in Android's Bouncer security program that he exploited by putting multiple bogus apps up on the Play Store.
  So... he didn't even exploit the security hole in Google Play - he just happened to be 'working with or associated with' someone who did.
  How you feeling about Google now? They're not only banning the person who found the issue, they're banning people associated with the people reporting the issue, including Miller's wife.
54. Re:Silly and inflammatory by Americano · 2012-09-21 13:36 · Score: 1
  
  This is really not debatable, or questionable, or a question of "if and why" - they banned him, for life. It is in the video, from Miller himself, who says, around 50 seconds into the linked video, "The good thing about Apple is, it's only a 1 year ban, where I'm banned from Google for... lifetime." Or, if you're really concerned that somebody somehow spliced in a convincing fake of his voice on that video, you can read it in his own words, from his twitter feed:
  http://twitter.com/0xcharlie/statuses/231200006038761472
  So... your thoughts on Google, Android, Andy Rubin et. al., in light of this? If Apple banning him for a year for exploiting a security hole (even for research) is moronic... how infinitely more stupid is Google for issuing a lifetime ban for simply being "associated" with someone who exploited a hole in the same manner?
55. Re:Silly and inflammatory by whosdat · 2012-09-21 13:49 · Score: 1
  
  Heh. In June, Oberheide hacks Bouncer with Miller and writes they're working with Google on that issue. In August, Miller gets banned for associating with Oberheide.
  Those are some mighty bad mood swings
56. Re:Silly and inflammatory by StillAnonymous · 2012-09-21 13:56 · Score: 1
  
  Because they Think Different.
57. Re:Silly and inflammatory by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-21 14:02 · Score: 0
  
  Because google is still worth being reasonable with. If they stoop to assholism as many times as apple, then they too will no longer be worth it.
58. Re:Silly and inflammatory by interkin3tic · 2012-09-21 14:02 · Score: 1
  
  I'll defend my sarcasm in light of what AC wrote initially. From the article I linked to, apple seems to have punished him for making it clear that there were holes in their app store security. Not actually exploiting them. That to me sounds like more of a PR move, though I'm not sure that's more boneheaded than banning him simply for violating the TOS. As I said, apples actions seem to be telling him that it would have been better had he given the exploit to someone who would use it maliciously, than broadcasting it to everyone.
  
  As far as google goes, I'm not sure why you keep trying to paint me as a hypocrite for not criticizing them as well. No details ( were given in that ethicalhacker story, and I couldn't immediately find any second source verifying that he had been banned from google, let alone any more details. I did find this suggesting he was working with Google.
  
  So I have to ask why I need to condemn google when I just have one line on one website saying they did the same thing?
59. Re:Silly and inflammatory by StillAnonymous · 2012-09-21 14:07 · Score: 1
  
  No. That actually makes the competition look a lot more attractive.
60. Re:Silly and inflammatory by BasilBrush · 2012-09-21 14:14 · Score: 1
  
  I couldn't immediately find any second source verifying that he had been banned from google
  He says it himself in the video. Of course you could chose to doubt him, but he's also the source of the story that Apple banned him for a year.
  From the article I linked to, apple seems to have punished him for making it clear that there were holes in their app store security. Not actually exploiting them.
  No. He sent an app to the app store that had a secret feature to download arbitrary code from a server. That is indistinguishable from malware, and does indeed break the ToS.
  Presumably he did the similar to Google. You seem to be hoping that he did something worse to Google to justify their rather heavier punishment. Hard to imagine what that could be. You seem to be stuck for hypotheticals as well.
61. Re:Silly and inflammatory by bhagwad · 2012-09-21 14:19 · Score: 1
  
  Neither of which changes the fact that one approach is good and the other is bad. I think I can safely say that the world as a whole is better of because Windows programs could be run by anyone and installed from any source.
62. Re:Silly and inflammatory by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-21 19:13 · Score: 0
  
  DERP DERP DERP!
  We've gone from "this practice is clearly anticompetitive" (a legal term of art with a specific meaning), to "I don't like that they do this and wish they'd stop" (an expression of an opinion that has absolutely no binding legal obligation associated with it.
  Maybe you could have saved us all the time of responding to your useless tripe by simply saying, "I don't like that Apple does this, and I wish they'd change their policies. Until they do, I don't think I'll consider buying an iOS device."
  Now shut the fuck up and stop trying to turn this into an anti-trust case. It's not, it never has been, and your insistence that it is just shows how retardedly, blindly partisan you are in your desire to "stick it to Apple."
63. Re:Silly and inflammatory by UnknowingFool · 2012-09-21 20:14 · Score: 1
  
  You were the one who held MS as the shining example of what you wanted except that they do exactly what you complain that Apple does. And on a Mac, you can't install anything you want? If you go through the Mac App store, Apple controls what they sell there just like any other store. But you don't have to use their store. Pretty soon MS will adopt the exact same model for the Win 8 store. I don't see what your point is.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
64. Re:Silly and inflammatory by bhagwad · 2012-09-21 23:35 · Score: 1
  
  Remember that only an investigation can reveal whether something is anti competitive or not. It depends on the market share and the amount of abuse. Remember that when Apple refused to approve the Google voice app, it was pressure from the FCC that finally got them to approve it. After all, it's "their store" right? They can refuse any app they want.
  Apparently not. Just because Apple is following the letter of the law doesn't mean that they can't be held to be anti competitive in the future.
65. Re:Silly and inflammatory by bhagwad · 2012-09-21 23:36 · Score: 1
  
  My point is talking about the practice not the company. Why doesn't Apple do the right thing and allow everyone to install whatever they want on their devices?
66. Re:Silly and inflammatory by Relayman · 2012-09-22 01:35 · Score: 1
  
  Ok, you are hereby forbidden to buy any Apple products.
  
  --
  If I used a sig over again, would anyone notice?
67. Re:Silly and inflammatory by Relayman · 2012-09-22 01:38 · Score: 1
  
  Because then we would have malware and porn. If you want malware, please choose an Android device and download away. Haven't you noticed you don't need anti-virus software on most Apple products?
  
  --
  If I used a sig over again, would anyone notice?
68. Re:Silly and inflammatory by bhagwad · 2012-09-22 01:45 · Score: 1
  
  Despite the malware, the entire world is better off for Windows on the PC being open to everyone. It has brought the age of computing to the masses as there's no centralized software control. If Apple truly wanted to do the right thing, they must open their platform.
69. Re:Silly and inflammatory by interkin3tic · 2012-09-22 02:27 · Score: 1
  
  I find it odd that you're still trying to convince me I'm biased against apple. What's your motivation? I don't like apple, if that's what you're after. My sarcastic reply to AC was more about how inconsequential TOS violations were. I think apple banned him for showing that their walled garden wasn't perfect. That probably isn't the case for google, since everyone already knew that has malware.
70. Re:Silly and inflammatory by UnknowingFool · 2012-09-22 03:30 · Score: 1
  
  Again, apples to apples comparison. On a Mac you can install what you want, but you can't do that on WP7/WP8 or iOS.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
71. Re:Silly and inflammatory by UnknowingFool · 2012-09-22 03:32 · Score: 1
  
  Then why are you trumpeting MS as what you want when they do the same thing. For the Mac you can install what you want just like you can with Windows. For iOS devices, you cannot. This was done for ease of use and to control malware. If you want total freedom choose Android. You don't like Apple's model, don't support them. I don't like Sony; I don't buy their electronics.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
72. Re:Silly and inflammatory by bhagwad · 2012-09-22 03:56 · Score: 1
  
  Why should Apple make a distinction between the PC platforms and smartphones?
73. Re:Silly and inflammatory by Plumpaquatsch · 2012-09-22 04:34 · Score: 1
  
  well Charlie did get banned from the app store for 1 year for finding a security hole.
  No, he got banned from the app store for violating the developers contract - which doesn't mention finding security holes.
  
  --
  Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
74. Re:Silly and inflammatory by UnknowingFool · 2012-09-22 04:40 · Score: 1
  
  Why should MS? Probably the same reasons. On a PC, the UI is far more capable and so installation and removal of software is easier. Even so malware has been a huge problem. Update mechanisms were wildly inconsistent. Software purchasing/distribution on mobile was not easy for most consumers. Thus the average mobile user did not buy much software and mobile developers did not invest in making software. It was a chicken and egg problem.
  Way back when Steve Jobs announced the model, these were the barriers Apple was going to overcome with the walled garden model. For the most part they overcame these problems enough for average consumers to buy apps. The total freedom model of Android is another model. You can choose between either but complaining about Apple and lauding MS when they both do the same thing is rather hypocritical.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
75. Re:Silly and inflammatory by Plumpaquatsch · 2012-09-22 05:35 · Score: 1
  
  I'll defend my sarcasm in light of what AC wrote initially. From the article I linked to, apple seems to have punished him for making it clear that there were holes in their app store security. Not actually exploiting them.
  
  So you don't attack Google because of what Charlie Miller himself says, but you attack (and still think rightfully) Apple for what you think read on some blog - which clearly says he put an app on the store exploiting the hole.
  
  --
  Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
76. Re:Silly and inflammatory by bhagwad · 2012-09-22 06:05 · Score: 1
  
  I lauded MS for their open approach on the PC model. I don't recall lauding them for any closed system.
77. Re:Silly and inflammatory by UnknowingFool · 2012-09-22 07:25 · Score: 1
  
  And Apple for the open OS X model? In fact the basis of OS X is open source as Darwin. Has MS open sourced the core of Windows? Hypocritical of you when they both have the same model for their computers and the same model for smart phones.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
78. Re:Silly and inflammatory by bhagwad · 2012-09-22 07:33 · Score: 1
  
  When I think of PCs, Windows comes to mind first - OS X doesn't even enter the equation. So I talked about Windows and not OS X. What's eating you?
79. Re:Silly and inflammatory by UnknowingFool · 2012-09-22 09:04 · Score: 1
  
  For computers, both MS and Apple are open. For smartphones, both are closed. Facts are facts. It is hypocritical for you to criticize Apple when they both have the same model.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
80. Re:Silly and inflammatory by bhagwad · 2012-09-22 09:06 · Score: 1
  
  It's not hypocritical because I never praised Microsoft's smartphone model. Come on dude - let it go. What's bugging you so much?
81. Re:Silly and inflammatory by Plumpaquatsch · 2012-09-22 22:47 · Score: 1
  
  It is anti-competitive to take 30% of the revenue of every 3rd party application for a device.
  ... if you are Apple, not if you are Goole or Amazon. Apparently.
  
  --
  Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
82. Re:Silly and inflammatory by UnknowingFool · 2012-09-23 01:47 · Score: 1
  
  Apples to apples comparison. When told repeatedly that they both have the same model, you kept with the same meme of Windows great, iOS bad. Please.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
83. Re:Silly and inflammatory by bhagwad · 2012-09-23 02:10 · Score: 1
  
  It IS great. And iOS IS bad. What's the deal? Since iOS has a much larger market share than Windows mobile, the latter needn't be mentioned. Simple.
84. Re:Silly and inflammatory by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-23 02:17 · Score: 0
  
  Charlie and Dino sounds like some kids adventure movie. What's up with that?
  We could have got away with not spending time and money fixing a security hole if it were not for those meddling kids.
85. Re:Silly and inflammatory by UnknowingFool · 2012-09-24 02:59 · Score: 1
  
  Just confirming your hypocrisy and bias. It is the same as if you complained that Apple is profit driven and how altruistic MS for having a free version of their IDE. Both are profit-driven and both have free IDEs.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
86. Re:Silly and inflammatory by bhagwad · 2012-09-24 03:10 · Score: 1
  
  If the market share of one company is overwhelming, I obviously talk about that more than the others. I can't be expected to ALSO mention dozens of others just to be "balanced and fair". If MS has a significant mobile market share, they would have been honored with a reference. Since Apple has a large one, they get screwed. Hardly surprising.
87. Re:Silly and inflammatory by UnknowingFool · 2012-09-24 03:44 · Score: 1
  
  Facts don't seem to be your strong point. The largest marketshare of smartphone OS belongs to Android not Apple. So "overwheming" is not exactly fair and balanced on your part. Apple does not control the OS of other phone manufacturers; they only offer vertical integration of their own products. None of which you have to buy. I didn't ask you to mention dozens of others. Just an apples to apples comparison of MS and Apple. Again, you lauded MS while criticizing Apple when they both did the same thing. Bias and hypocrisy.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
88. Re:Silly and inflammatory by bhagwad · 2012-09-24 03:47 · Score: 1
  
  Umm...in case you didn't notice, Android allows sideloading of apps. Apple is the biggest offender when it comes to closed mobile systems. And I repeat (in a tired tone) - I never lauded MS's mobile strategy. I just think they're irrelevant in that area and not worth mentioning.
  If you had to criticize a company for a closed mobile OS, it would of course be Apple since they are the largest offender.
89. Re:Silly and inflammatory by UnknowingFool · 2012-09-24 04:26 · Score: 1
  
  If your complaint was that iOS is closed and Android is open, that IS a fair complaint. Complaining that iOS and closed and Windows is open isn't a logical or fair comparison. Apples to apples.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
90. Re:Silly and inflammatory by bhagwad · 2012-09-24 04:38 · Score: 1
  
  "Complaining that iOS and closed and Windows is open"
  I was comparing software philosophies. Those are the same regardless of platform and doesn't change from between PCs and smartphones.
91. Re:Silly and inflammatory by toriver · 2012-09-24 07:28 · Score: 0
  
  So, exactly like the Playstation Store, XBox Live Marketplace and a shedload of other closed environments. If you develop for iOS you know this going in.
  The competition part is to develop for a different platform without such a requirement.
92. Re:Silly and inflammatory by UnknowingFool · 2012-09-24 10:21 · Score: 1
  
  And they are both the same. Why is it so hard for you to admit that MS and Apple have the same exact philosophies? The fact that one has more marketshare than the other makes no difference. Having more marketshare does not change the facts. Your points are illogical and biased. Let's construct your arguments a different way:
  "I think Mary is prettier than Suzy because she's blonde."
  "Both Mary and Suzy are blonde."
  "Well, Mary is a cheerleader."
  "They are both cheerleaders."
  "Still Mary is prettier because she's blonde."
  In the end, you've ignored facts and repeatedly stated your preference.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
93. Re:Silly and inflammatory by bhagwad · 2012-09-24 10:59 · Score: 1
  
  Next you'll want me to include Linux in my list of OSs as well. Market share may not mean anything to YOU. It does to me. Apple has the largest market share amongst closed OS systems. So it catches my criticism since they're the biggest targets.
  Let it go dude.
94. Re:Silly and inflammatory by Relayman · 2012-09-24 20:00 · Score: 1
  
  Considering the billions of dollars spent unnecessarily on antivirus software and additional billions stolen from people who weren't able to stop their computer from being "open to everyone," I disagree with you.
  
  --
  If I used a sig over again, would anyone notice?
95. Re:Silly and inflammatory by UnknowingFool · 2012-09-25 12:16 · Score: 1
  
  You were the one who repeatedly lauded MS and criticized Apple for having the same philosophies. And how does having a larger or smaller marketshare change the basic fact that MS and Apple have the exact same philosophies? Now you are desperately trying to reframe the argument to cover up your hypocrisy and bias. Why don't you simply admit that you're biased?
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
96. Re:Silly and inflammatory by bhagwad · 2012-09-25 13:12 · Score: 1
  
  When you have a huge market share, you have a duty to keep your platform open. Otherwise you're a douche. Which is why companies which small closed platforms don't get mentioned. You're forgiven if you have a minuscule market share. Not if you have a big one.
97. Re:Silly and inflammatory by UnknowingFool · 2012-09-25 13:41 · Score: 1
  
  If tomorrow, Apple has a tenth of the marketshare they have today in smartphones, they would still have the same philosophy. And they still have the same philosophy as MS. Have any basic philosopies changed? Would you still criticize Apple and laud MS? Yes. Hypocrisy and bias.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
98. Re:Silly and inflammatory by bhagwad · 2012-09-25 14:07 · Score: 1
  
  If tomorrow Apple has a tenth of the marketshare, I won't criticize them anymore since I won't view them as having an ethical responsibility to keep their platform open.
99. Re:Silly and inflammatory by UnknowingFool · 2012-09-26 01:38 · Score: 1
  
  So when Apple had 0% apps when the iPhone launched, they weren't douchebags. So when MS switched from an open model to a closed one for smartphones, they're not douchebags? Isn't your illogical argument the same as you saying the childhood bully that takes your lunch isn't a douchebag because he wasn't popular but the other bully that took your money is a douchebag because he was popular. There's no difference but your bias.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
100. Re:Silly and inflammatory by bhagwad · 2012-09-26 01:43 · Score: 1
  
  "So when Apple had 0% apps when the iPhone launched, they weren't douchebags."
  No. Since they didn't have market share, they had no ethical responsibility to keep it open.
  "So when MS switched from an open model to a closed one for smartphones, they're not douchebags?"
  Strictly speaking MS smartphones were open with Windows Mobile for a long time. I know because I used several. Sideloading and installation was very much allowed. But as I said, a lower market share doesn't convey any expectations.
  When it comes to bullying, this is a false equivalence. A popular bully affects people as much as an unpopular bully and has the same strength to inflict misery. Marketshare isn't the same thing.
101. Re:Silly and inflammatory by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-30 02:02 · Score: 0
  
  Probably the same crap that got them banned from the apple store. Seems they like to test their exploits out in the wild by uploading them to the app store. They should be banned!!! Seems like assholes to me. And I doubt his wife is a devel, he was prolly using her account for his purposes which got her banned as well.
Apple should love them by ackthpt · 2012-09-21 02:57 · Score: 5, Insightful

Even go so far as to pay them. Finding these holes should be done before harm happens. Futher, Apple should review their coders who leave the gaps in and train (or sack) them.

--

A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
1. Re:Apple should love them by jo_ham · 2012-09-21 03:51 · Score: 0
  
  Well, they did get free copies of OS X and they do get thanked in security release notes.
  Maybe they should submit resumes if they want to be paid though.
2. Re:Apple should love them by fermion · 2012-09-21 04:12 · Score: 1
  
  Absolutely. I mean if someone finds a way to hack your security system and enter your house without you knowing, they do not have a responsibility to tell anyone. No, they should plant cameras in you bedroom and bathroom so they can proive the concept, then showing how silly you are for note having perfect security by uploading naked pictures of kids and you doing naughty things to the internet.
  Further, there is no way that the person who broke into your house is responsible. It is your fault for not having perfect security. So don't even think of calling the police. You have no basis for complaint. And what about the naked pictures of the kids. Also your fault. So you get to register as the sex offender, not the innocent person who was just doing security research and conductet a proof of concept survey.
  In all seriousness, if one finds an error, it is responsible to state the error to the appropriate people first. If they ignore you then promoting a proof of concept . But only a extremely foolish person would expect gratitude for such a thing.
  
  --
  "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
3. Re:Apple should love them by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-21 06:16 · Score: 0
  
  Reminds me of an old Apple compiler message:
  "Too many errors on one line (make fewer)"
Hate? by cultiv8 · 2012-09-21 03:01 · Score: 5, Informative

Is that why Apple gave them free early-release copies of OS X Lion and invited them to test?

--
sysadmins and parents of newborns get the same amount of sleep.
1. Re:Hate? by Desler · 2012-09-21 03:04 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Stop bringing facts into this!!
2. Re:Hate? by Ixitar · 2012-09-21 03:05 · Score: 2
  
  This just shows the article submitter's bias.
3. Re:Hate? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-21 03:20 · Score: 0
  
  LOL !!!
4. Re:Hate? by macbeth66 · 2012-09-21 03:21 · Score: 2
  
  And richly deserved. They've become the new Microsoft with their 'our way or the highway' mentality.
  I have a lot of respect for what Steven Jobs has accomplished and envy for his money. However, the business tactics he instilled at Apple and that his successors have promelageted are reprehensible. I do what I can do steer peiople away from all things Apple.
5. Re:Hate? by Quiet_Desperation · 2012-09-21 03:24 · Score: 1
  
  Well, Apple sent them free copies of Lion, so the answer depends on what you thought of Lion.
6. Re:Hate? by Dog-Cow · 2012-09-21 03:32 · Score: 0
  
  I gladly and joyfully negate your efforts at every opportunity. Apple hardware isn't a good fit for everyone, but I never hesitate to endorse it when appropriate.
  Every for-profit business is "anti-competitive" based on the slashdot definition of that term. It's become entirely meaningless.
  Apple isn't Microsoft. They don't act like Microsoft. They don't look like Microsoft. The comparison is so absurd that it demonstrates that you are an unthinking asshole.
7. Re:Hate? by macbeth66 · 2012-09-21 03:51 · Score: 1
  
  I gladly and joyfully negate your efforts at every opportunity. Apple hardware isn't a good fit for everyone, but I never hesitate to endorse it when appropriate.
  It isn't about the quality of their hardware, as nice as it may be, it is about getting sucked into their evil vortex.
  
  Every for-profit business is "anti-competitive" based on the slashdot definition of that term. It's become entirely meaningless. Apple isn't Microsoft. They don't act like Microsoft. They don't look like Microsoft.
  They are, realatively speaking, worse. It is kind of like Yahoo vs Google. Yahoo makes no bones about being in it for the money. Google, on the other hands, stands behind the notion of answering to a higher value. And then stooping lower than Yahoo would. I 'trust' Yahoo more than Google, at least in terms of their face value. Don't forget, Jobs built the first Apple as a tool for stealing from the phone company. "Oh. Wait. We can make even more money going legit."
  
  The comparison is so absurd that it demonstrates that you are an unthinking asshole.
  Gonna go Godwin on me?
8. Re:Hate? by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo · 2012-09-21 03:53 · Score: 1
  
  Agree completely! Apple is far worse than Microsoft. They're trying to stifle innovation by utilizing our system of laws like a blunt instrument, they sell 'cool' and are attempting to make the current generation of computer users into sub-moronic wallets with legs that bring every iDevice problem into a "genius" bar. But I suppose that anybody with a Fox News link in their sig worships freely at the alter of the free market. Even if it doesn't actually exist.
  
  --
  "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
9. Re:Hate? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-21 04:01 · Score: 0
  
  Good point. Microsoft sent our company free copies of Vista.
  They must REALLY hate us!
10. Re:Hate? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-21 04:04 · Score: 0
  
  They're trying to stifle innovation by utilizing our system of laws like a blunt instrument
  By which you mean, "Apple is trying to succeed by every legal means available to them" - which puts them at a significant advantage to Microsoft, who used illegal means to gain an advantage. You may not LIKE the laws, but if Apple is obeying them, then your rage is best spent effecting change to those laws, rather than demanding that Apple - and only Apple - behave as if patents and copyrights don't exist.
  I suppose you're a Fandroid, right? How do you like Google's behavior vis-a-vis patents and contracts? Think they're just as bad as Apple? If you say "no," then you're an uncritical moron who is rooting for the team whose colors are on his jersey, and nothing more.
  Also, nice ad hominem. How much does it weigh?
11. Re:Hate? by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo · 2012-09-21 04:13 · Score: 1
  
  Unlike complete nit-wits (such as yourself) I don't have my identity tied up into a phone. I use what works best for me, at the moment that's Android, if in a year a more tantalizing phone comes out I'll make the switch. And for the record, ANY company that tries to get away with patenting concepts that a first year computer science student would create (don't worry, you'll get there eventually!) should be forced to sit in a corner for a year to think about what they've done. YOU are part of the problem, you defend your team no matter what, in your (admittedly miniscule) mind they can do no wrong. Oh, and using terms like "fandroid" really adds a lot to the conversation. Sorry if I kept you from rubbing your iPhone over your body while masturbating to zombie Steve Jobs, I'll leave you to it.
  
  --
  "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
12. Re:Hate? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-21 05:25 · Score: 0
  
  Recess is over, kids. Time to get back to class.
13. Re:Hate? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-21 05:50 · Score: 0
  
  You know what they say, keep your friends close and your enemies closer. They clearly sent them copies of OS X Lion because they hate them.
14. Re:Hate? by ColdWetDog · 2012-09-21 06:40 · Score: 2
  
  Evil Vortex?
  Evil Vortex?
  Please disconnect from the Internet before you do yourself a mischief.
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
15. Re:Hate? by ColdWetDog · 2012-09-21 06:41 · Score: 1
  
  Recess is over, kids. Time to get back to class.
  This is Slashdot. Recess is never over. Endless summer and all that.
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
16. Re:Hate? by BasilBrush · 2012-09-21 07:38 · Score: 0
  
  sucked into their evil vortex.
  If your intention was to make it clear to everyone you're a nutjob, you've succeeded.
17. Re:Hate? by konohitowa · 2012-09-22 03:19 · Score: 1
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
  Peruse at your leisure.
Scumbags by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-21 03:07 · Score: 5, Funny

All they do is hurt Apple's good name. Apple needs to have these idiots sent to prison, something they should be doing more of during this global assault of this proud American corporation.
1. Re:Scumbags by bjwest · 2012-09-21 03:19 · Score: 1
  
  Subtle troll is anything but subtle.
  
  --
  
  --- Keep the choice with the user..
2. Re:Scumbags by macbeth66 · 2012-09-21 03:25 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry man, I just used up my last mod points. Otherwise I would have modded you 'Funny'. My sides are hurting!
3. Re:Scumbags by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-21 03:48 · Score: 0
  
  Then why did you call him subtle?
Love by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-21 03:08 · Score: 0

Ahhh what a lovely couple. They are great together... lmao
I hate headaches... by erroneus · 2012-09-21 03:09 · Score: 1

But it turns out, most of my headaches are MY FAULT. By following bad eating habits, for example, I create sub-optimal nutritional conditions which, at times, results in discomfort. Other causes of headaches might result from other conditions within my preventative control. And it is my failure to manage those conditions which is the cause of my headaches.
Apple? Are you listening? Manage your conditions and you will have fewer headaches.
1. Re:I hate headaches... by Zero__Kelvin · 2012-09-21 12:35 · Score: 1
  
  What the hell is so sub-optimally nutritious about an Apple? It sounds like it is your ignorance that is causing you headaches to me ...
  
  --
  Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
summary by crossmr · 2012-09-21 03:15 · Score: 0

reads like it was written by a 1st year PR student.
Hate? by jmitchel!jmitchel.co · 2012-09-21 03:21 · Score: 1

Is there evidence that Apple actually hates them? Or is this more like those side bar ads:

Astronomers Hate Her. Housewife discovers 10 secrets for firm abs.
Talk about a stupid headline... by arkane1234 · 2012-09-21 03:24 · Score: 5, Informative

That headline is pretty damned stupid. It's like the stuff I've seen before on internet scams
"Doctors hate this bodybuilder - see how he keeps growing 20 lbs of muscle per week!"
"The U.S. Government hates this guy - see how one guy never pays taxes!"
"Women hate this doctor - find out how to get any women you want by taking this new secret pill!"

--
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
Link-bait Headline by mikestew · 2012-09-21 03:57 · Score: 1, Offtopic

The headline reminds of those cheesy ads on (as one example) snopes.com: "Find out why dermatologists hate this guy."
"Use this silly old trick to lose stubborn belly fat."
Slashdot encourages you to watch the video Apple doesn't want you to see!!!11
Apple hating ? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-21 04:57 · Score: 0

This doesn't make sense, because if these dudes did not find security holes, then some malicious persons probably would. So Apple should thank them, perhaps even give them a job, and ask them to peek for security holes all day long!
Oh, that's right - it's Apple, that's probably why Apple hate people that help them making their products better..
1. Re:Apple hating ? by FreeFire · 2012-09-21 05:58 · Score: 0
  
  Or it could be that the sensationalist headline doesn't have any justification whatsoever.
Don't we all seem to be forgetting... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-21 07:17 · Score: 0

...that the hacker subtypes of white, grey, black, wherever you want to put yourself, have a lot of interplay because this interplay is necessary towards pushing digital security forward? I expected this to be one of the first comments...
1. Re:Don't we all seem to be forgetting... by Zero__Kelvin · 2012-09-21 12:38 · Score: 1
  
  " I expected this to be one of the first comments..."
  Well then, you should have posted much sooner. For future reference, if there are already a lot of comments in the thread, yours won't be one of the first.
  
  --
  Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Tabloid bullshit by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-26 02:01 · Score: 0

It's a shame to read such baseless and misguiding issue on Slashdot.