Apple is hardly unique, and frankly, I'm pretty sure they're comfortable with the accusation - they've been facing it for over 40 years now.
Every tech company has "planned obsolescence" - it's called "End of Life."
Microsoft ditched support for Windows 1.0 through Vista, "forcing" users to upgrade. And there was a huge outcry each time.
Every phone handset maker drops support and expects you to upgrade - including Samsung, LG, Google, and Essential. Android users have a particularly tough time getting updates to Android.
Most watches take roughly the same amount of care to replace the battery as an iPhone, and (shocker), they also require tools to replace the battery. My car's battery isn't exactly trivial to replace, taking tools and 15-20 minutes to mount & secure it properly.
Hell, my toddler's bath toys require tools to replace the batteries in their child-safe battery-compartments.
Replacing the battery on an iOS device isn't something that can be done without tools and a clean table, but it's easily doable. The phones are clearly laid out so that they are relatively easy to disassemble & service.
Apple simply decided that 20 minutes every two years to replace the battery was an acceptable tradeoff for the "sacred tenths of a millimeter" saved.
Ah, but Enterprise IT wants to be certain their more technically-inclined lusers can't disable the enterprise's ability to "manage" and "audit" the systems they manage. It's literally one of the selling points touted by Intel (and AMD for their equivalent of ME) until recently.
It's not like the machines Enterprise IT buys are any different from the ones I can buy as a consumer, and bulk buyers have a hell of a lot more sway than individual consumers.
Sure, there aren't any servers, or even device drivers. It's been decades of work, but you too can have an idle loop that is provably bug-free in both hardware and software!
IMHO it's kind of dangerous to portray something pretty fucking insecure appear to be useful in any way
Well, that's pretty much what happens for everything that uses "crypto".
Vanishingly few people know how to implement any given crypto algorithm securely, but that doesn't stop companies from handing the spec to an intern and tell them to implement it in hardware.
I quite liked the cryptanalysis of Infineon's TPM's chip being along the lines of "The mistake is too stupid to have been malicious." I wish I could find the link...
For years now, servers have had a Baseboard Management Computer (BMC) that was always on and could control power, press reset, and provide serial console over LAN
It's worth nothing that BMC's are notoriously buggy as well, often requiring unplugging the server in order to get the BMC out of a "stuck" state.
At least with a BMC, however, there wasn't much damage that a hard power cycle wouldn't fix.
Just like human drivers without maps and any knowledge of the neighborhood, right? Very efficient!
Before people took snapshots of their dinner and pasted it over the internet, getting lost was easily the most effective way to find the best restaurants.
Younger generations will never know the joy of pulling over, hanging out the window and begging for directions.
Until recently, Utah (the state in TFA) requires "dealers in possession of a controlled substance must purchase and affix drug tax stamps to the controlled substance." (Story covering the repeal)
Yes, some stamp collectors have been able to buy the stamps. Collectors that apply for them are given a complimentary and thorough in-home audit.
The government sells the assets that were obtained by selling contraband. So it is actually like the government just sold a bunch of drugs.
No, somebody sold contraband, and the government collected taxes & fines.
Utah (the state in TFA) requires "dealers in possession of a controlled substance must purchase and affix drug tax stamps to the controlled substance."
There's literally a law requiring drug dealers to buy stamps from the state, and attach the stamps onto every packet of drugs sold.
As with most taxes, there are severe penalties for noncompliance.
What they should do is hold onto the seized assets. Return them to him if he is found not guilty, do what the law allows if he is found guilty.
You clearly do not understand civil forfeiture. There are only three states which require conviction for forfeiture. In 46 states, if there's enough evidence to go to trial, your property is forfeit -- win or lose. (Many states require enough evidence for a search warrant to forfeit property -- and that's all.).
If you are found innocent, your odds of seeing one red cent again are comical.
Unsurprisingly, politicians are split two ways over the issue, and we get to vote for a candidate:
* A candidate who will "tax and spend" to fund law enforcement through taxes alone, and expects law enforcement to be self-motivated in their job. * A candidate who "cuts government spending", and motivates law enforcement to fund their departments by finding bad guys, and seizing the bad guy's property.
I'm glad the Framers added the right to speedy sale of BTC, but they could have also added one for trials.
It could be his defense team requesting the delay.
Civil forfeiture is used for nearly every drug crime prosecuted (not convicted -- prosecuted). The process goes all the way back to the US prohibition on Alcohol. The chemical substance may have changed, but the process is the same: Property is seized during "drug" activity, the Police get the assets to buy equipment, facilities, or salaries.
It's one reason you never travel with a large amount of cash in the US. In some states, police can often just claim "we have probable cause that the cash is drug money" and seize it. Zero recourse.
Richard Thornburgh, Reagan's attorney general, said:
It's now possible for a drug dealer to serve time in a forfeiture-financed prison after being arrested by agents driving a forfeiture-provided automobile while working in a forfeiture-funded sting operation.
Many politicians love the idea - make the police self-funding by letting the Police keep seized assets, and then cut taxes.
What could possibly go wrong when the Police are financially motivated to seize property, and don't need to convict the owner to seize it?
Oracle will likely sue, and then use every option in its power to bankrupt any accuser with legal costs before it gets to trial. Sure, there's probably a "loser pays" part of the law, but eventually the Lawyer representing Oracle's accuser is going to say "you know... I may never get paid for this... I'm out."
And as a sign of the worsening rift between them, this summer Oracle tried to sell reporters on a story about the privacy pitfalls of Android, two sources confirmed to Recode.
That's not exactly a tough sell, given Google's revenue stream is dependent on tracking as much as possible about their users, to serve "more relevant" advertising.
It's not like the situation is any rosier on Android: For years, Google has been adding functionality not to the open source AOSP code base, but to its own proprietary binary libraries, specifically the ever-expanding GMS (Google Mobile Services), which it uses as a cudgel to force handset makers to stay in line. When a handset maker doesn't stay in line for any reason, Google cuts them off.
For example, when Amazon decided to stop selling Google devices, Google retaliated by cutting off their own customers who had the nerve to use Amazon devices.
It's like the early '2000's all over again, when Microsoft was pushing its own "standards" and "services" (that it was wholly in control of).
The only difference is now, it's Google creating the "standard", and instead of paying for licenses, companies have to give up their right to sue for IP violations (on their own patents).
Google is great at making something "open source", and then making any community (or external) involvement pointless. Take AoSP, where it's "open source", but Google uses it to leverage other companies into doing its bidding.
Amazon forked from AoSP, and isn't doing Google's bidding, so Google is breaking Amazon's fork.
What good is Android being "Open Source" when Google leverages control over it like this?
over a year ago I tried streaming Prime through the browser and casting that to my Chromecast. It didn't work too well back then.
We a similar pissing match with AppleTV and Prime streaming. There was a "promise" that they'd have it working before the end of 2017, but there's no end in sight.
And there'll be another one as Google tries to force everybody to use video codecs it effectively controls, and refuses to use the ISO standard that device manufacturers agreed to use and support. (The alternative being any company using Google's codecs has to give up their ability to enforce their own patent rights).
So yeah, companies saying "I'm willing to fuck my own customers to get your company to do my company's bidding."
Slashdot Mirror
Apple is hardly unique, and frankly, I'm pretty sure they're comfortable with the accusation - they've been facing it for over 40 years now.
Every tech company has "planned obsolescence" - it's called "End of Life."
Microsoft ditched support for Windows 1.0 through Vista, "forcing" users to upgrade. And there was a huge outcry each time.
Every phone handset maker drops support and expects you to upgrade - including Samsung, LG, Google, and Essential. Android users have a particularly tough time getting updates to Android.
making the battery non-replaceable
Most watches take roughly the same amount of care to replace the battery as an iPhone, and (shocker), they also require tools to replace the battery. My car's battery isn't exactly trivial to replace, taking tools and 15-20 minutes to mount & secure it properly.
Hell, my toddler's bath toys require tools to replace the batteries in their child-safe battery-compartments.
Replacing the battery on an iOS device isn't something that can be done without tools and a clean table, but it's easily doable. The phones are clearly laid out so that they are relatively easy to disassemble & service.
Apple simply decided that 20 minutes every two years to replace the battery was an acceptable tradeoff for the "sacred tenths of a millimeter" saved.
Ah, but Enterprise IT wants to be certain their more technically-inclined lusers can't disable the enterprise's ability to "manage" and "audit" the systems they manage. It's literally one of the selling points touted by Intel (and AMD for their equivalent of ME) until recently.
It's not like the machines Enterprise IT buys are any different from the ones I can buy as a consumer, and bulk buyers have a hell of a lot more sway than individual consumers.
Honestly, if you want secure, you gotta use ARM these days. ARM has been formally/mathmatically verified, and there's even a formally verified microkernel.
So we can all cheaply run a Raspberry Pi 3 and get a formally verified hardware and software stack. Or a BeagleBone... or whatever ARM system you want to use.
Sure, there aren't any servers, or even device drivers. It's been decades of work, but you too can have an idle loop that is provably bug-free in both hardware and software!
IMHO it's kind of dangerous to portray something pretty fucking insecure appear to be useful in any way
Well, that's pretty much what happens for everything that uses "crypto".
Vanishingly few people know how to implement any given crypto algorithm securely, but that doesn't stop companies from handing the spec to an intern and tell them to implement it in hardware.
I quite liked the cryptanalysis of Infineon's TPM's chip being along the lines of "The mistake is too stupid to have been malicious." I wish I could find the link...
For years now, servers have had a Baseboard Management Computer (BMC) that was always on and could control power, press reset, and provide serial console over LAN
It's worth nothing that BMC's are notoriously buggy as well, often requiring unplugging the server in order to get the BMC out of a "stuck" state.
At least with a BMC, however, there wasn't much damage that a hard power cycle wouldn't fix.
Just like human drivers without maps and any knowledge of the neighborhood, right? Very efficient!
Before people took snapshots of their dinner and pasted it over the internet, getting lost was easily the most effective way to find the best restaurants.
Younger generations will never know the joy of pulling over, hanging out the window and begging for directions.
Maybe, but there's an awful lot of elephant to drill through before you get to the turtle shell.
Ever consider the BTC may be stored in a US based exchange like coinbase who store over 98% of the assets "for their customers security"?
If the exchange is in the US, they'd no doubt have to turn over the BTC (or its cash equivalent) or face federal money laundering charges.
Until recently, Utah (the state in TFA) requires "dealers in possession of a controlled substance must purchase and affix drug tax stamps to the controlled substance." (Story covering the repeal)
Yes, some stamp collectors have been able to buy the stamps. Collectors that apply for them are given a complimentary and thorough in-home audit.
The government sells the assets that were obtained by selling contraband. So it is actually like the government just sold a bunch of drugs.
No, somebody sold contraband, and the government collected taxes & fines.
Utah (the state in TFA) requires "dealers in possession of a controlled substance must purchase and affix drug tax stamps to the controlled substance."
There's literally a law requiring drug dealers to buy stamps from the state, and attach the stamps onto every packet of drugs sold.
As with most taxes, there are severe penalties for noncompliance.
What they should do is hold onto the seized assets. Return them to him if he is found not guilty, do what the law allows if he is found guilty.
You clearly do not understand civil forfeiture. There are only three states which require conviction for forfeiture. In 46 states, if there's enough evidence to go to trial, your property is forfeit -- win or lose. (Many states require enough evidence for a search warrant to forfeit property -- and that's all.).
If you are found innocent, your odds of seeing one red cent again are comical.
Unsurprisingly, politicians are split two ways over the issue, and we get to vote for a candidate:
* A candidate who will "tax and spend" to fund law enforcement through taxes alone, and expects law enforcement to be self-motivated in their job.
* A candidate who "cuts government spending", and motivates law enforcement to fund their departments by finding bad guys, and seizing the bad guy's property.
I'm glad the Framers added the right to speedy sale of BTC, but they could have also added one for trials.
It could be his defense team requesting the delay.
Civil forfeiture is used for nearly every drug crime prosecuted (not convicted -- prosecuted). The process goes all the way back to the US prohibition on Alcohol. The chemical substance may have changed, but the process is the same: Property is seized during "drug" activity, the Police get the assets to buy equipment, facilities, or salaries.
It's one reason you never travel with a large amount of cash in the US. In some states, police can often just claim "we have probable cause that the cash is drug money" and seize it. Zero recourse.
Richard Thornburgh, Reagan's attorney general, said:
It's now possible for a drug dealer to serve time in a forfeiture-financed prison after being arrested by agents driving a forfeiture-provided automobile while working in a forfeiture-funded sting operation.
Many politicians love the idea - make the police self-funding by letting the Police keep seized assets, and then cut taxes.
What could possibly go wrong when the Police are financially motivated to seize property, and don't need to convict the owner to seize it?
Give tetraethyl lead its due as well.
The fact is that the entire global population is breathing a lot less neurotoxin in 2017 than in 1977.
Stallman wanted to write a complete os, and actually did so, it just happens to be called emacs ;).
IIRC, EMACS isn't fully capable of concurrency (and only recently gained any form of it - but it's not universally compatible).
Get some women to 'remember' sexual 'assaults' by Oracle management from 20 or 30 years ago, then demand that the accused resign or be fired
In times like these, it's useful to refer to organizational trees of the companies
Oracle will likely sue, and then use every option in its power to bankrupt any accuser with legal costs before it gets to trial. Sure, there's probably a "loser pays" part of the law, but eventually the Lawyer representing Oracle's accuser is going to say "you know... I may never get paid for this... I'm out."
And as a sign of the worsening rift between them, this summer Oracle tried to sell reporters on a story about the privacy pitfalls of Android, two sources confirmed to Recode.
That's not exactly a tough sell, given Google's revenue stream is dependent on tracking as much as possible about their users, to serve "more relevant" advertising.
Well, the important thing to remember is that it's not about political parties: it's about power.
A party is a means to that end, as is wealth.
Power corrupts.
Sure. I could refuse that pill of cyanide, but if I don't take it, you'll shoot me in the head.
Totally an option.
It's not like the situation is any rosier on Android: For years, Google has been adding functionality not to the open source AOSP code base, but to its own proprietary binary libraries, specifically the ever-expanding GMS (Google Mobile Services), which it uses as a cudgel to force handset makers to stay in line. When a handset maker doesn't stay in line for any reason, Google cuts them off.
For example, when Amazon decided to stop selling Google devices, Google retaliated by cutting off their own customers who had the nerve to use Amazon devices.
Just how many virgins girls are you going to exsanguinate to live that long?
Welcome to Y2K!
The players have changed, but the game has not!
There's a caucophany of others.
It's like the early '2000's all over again, when Microsoft was pushing its own "standards" and "services" (that it was wholly in control of).
The only difference is now, it's Google creating the "standard", and instead of paying for licenses, companies have to give up their right to sue for IP violations (on their own patents).
Google is great at making something "open source", and then making any community (or external) involvement pointless. Take AoSP, where it's "open source", but Google uses it to leverage other companies into doing its bidding.
Amazon forked from AoSP, and isn't doing Google's bidding, so Google is breaking Amazon's fork.
What good is Android being "Open Source" when Google leverages control over it like this?
I've heard many times that this war was over.... we'll see.
No end in sight
over a year ago I tried streaming Prime through the browser and casting that to my Chromecast. It didn't work too well back then.
We a similar pissing match with AppleTV and Prime streaming. There was a "promise" that they'd have it working before the end of 2017, but there's no end in sight.
And there'll be another one as Google tries to force everybody to use video codecs it effectively controls, and refuses to use the ISO standard that device manufacturers agreed to use and support. (The alternative being any company using Google's codecs has to give up their ability to enforce their own patent rights).
So yeah, companies saying "I'm willing to fuck my own customers to get your company to do my company's bidding."
Private spy agencies would work for anybody who pays them.
Including any oligarch on the planet. Is it any wonder a rich guy would want that?