But, you have to remember that rights are more important than a single life.
You mean the right Apple has to decide which apps it will or will not sell, right? No one is saying you don't have the right to warn others about a DUI checkpoint (although it may be illegal in some states, I don't know. But that's outside of the scope of the issuance at hand).
Reason #437 to dislike the Apple App Store. Publishing data on police checkpoints is neither illegal nor immoral. This is publicly available information (police departments frequently publish it themselves). This is yet another arbitrary restriction on Apple's part.
Apps that use published data are allowed.
This isn't arbitrary, it's a voluntary choice Apple made at the request of lawmakers, and it can simply be summed up as Apple saying, "we don't want to help people drive drunk".
It's funny, on the one hand, Apple is supposed to be this evil, money-seeking monster, and when they voluntarily give up revenue from a category of apps with no monetary gain to be had for doing so, they are evil for that, regardless of their intentions.
You don't have to agree with Appe, but it's difficult to argue their motivation here.
Your state can't make laws that violate the US Constitution. You're basically saying that they made a law which violates the fourth and fifth amendments under some circumstances.
He wasn't making a slippery slope argument. He never said this would lead to that. He was saying they are both based on the same notion.
The roads are public. Making use of them should not force one to give up their constitutional rights like this. Especially not something so extreme and fundamental as these checkpoints do.
The way you talk, it's like you are on a vicarious power trip. It's really disturbing.
That's not how it works. Calling it an "agreement" is highly misleading. Extremely few people are aware of such laws, so how can the rest be said to have actually "agreed" to it?
Not that this changes the effect of these laws, but it's not like most people have ever specifically made a statement like, "yes, I agee to be subject to random DUI checkpoints". For most people, where such laws exist, it's not so much that they ever have specifically agreed to these things, but more that they are subject to such laws due to being under qualifying jurisdiction, licensing, and behavior.
Additionally, just because something is the law, or is buried in an agreement (either explicitly, ot implicitly), does not automatically make it right or beyond reproach or even constitutional.
The data isn't just the WiFi access points and cell towers it sees, but hundreds and thousands of additional APs and towers that are in the local area that it hasn't seen, and most likely will never see.
The iPhone sends a small set of radio signals it has seen to Apple, and Apple's servers send back a comparably huge dataset so that if you drive 20 or even possibly 100 miles away from where you've been, it already has coordinates for towers and APs that it will see in this new area, allowing for much quicker GPS acquisition.
The spike started in 2005 with music sales, which is exactly my point. Apple takes 30% of the top of other people's content, and that is where most of their revenue comes from. They don't need a huge staff to make money off other people's products.
Apple doesn't profit very much from their App/Music/Book/Video/etc. stores. These are primarily created to provide an added value to their hardware products.
Apple lists their numbers. For example, they have sold 15 billion songs (that's $5 billion in revenue (not profit) since 2005) and have paid $2.5 billion to app developers (that's $830 million in revenue (not profit) since 2008.
Apple takes in more than those two stores combined, in pure profit, every four months or so.
That's still a *LOT* less of a "functional nightmare" than having multiple buildings housing a similar number of people, which is one of the problems Apple is solving here.
Most legislators in our County just stay quiet to avoid asking dumb questions at public budget meetings. Then again, some do not, and do look at the very least sound ignorant to anything going on in the IT world.
Wouldn't that be why you ask questions, because you are ignorant about something?
Do you have anything to support this? Because it seems as though the iphone is just storing the cell tower and wifi locations it picks up when it connects to them, nothing it would need to retrieve from Apple.
Yawn, another idiotic post putting forth the notion that Apple is hell bent on locking down Mac OS X like iOS.
It may be good business for Apple, and good for Apple shareholders
But it's NOT good business for Apple or their shareholders. That's the disconnect here. It make no sense for Apple to hobble their PCs like this. It makes them less valuable, and fewer people will buy them.
There's some apples to oranges here and I'll explain why. On iOS in order to update any of the apps Apple must release a full package (600MB+) and you must connect it to a computer and sync to receive these updates. On Android the updates are broken up into two categories, system and applications. The system update can be received over the air, but has the problem you have mentioned of being slow to come from manufacturers & cellular companies. The applications updates have been much quicker and are easily updated by anyone with market access.
I'm sure there was a point here, but I'm not sure what it is supposed to be.
The virus expert from the Lookout Mobile Security, Kevin Mahaffey, said that Geinmi is discovered on a third party market apps in china
Again, not on the main market. There were some less dangerous things found in the main market, just like on iOS. However, Google remotely removed those just like Apple would. You also know what an application is going to use when you install on Android, whereas iOS could be using anything (aside from location services).
Outright malware has been found on the main Android Marketplace. And you're, Google has, on multiple occasions, remotely killed apps. Something which Apple would do, but has never had to do.
So, you're equating Apple's kill switch, which they've never used, to Google's kill switch, which they have had to use time and again?
It most certainly *is* a cache. It's a cached subset of Apple location database.
Apple has a large database of the geographic locations of WiFi access points and cell towers. The database is very large, and ever changing, so it makes no sense (and is probably impossible) to keep on the device in its entirety, so the iPhone downloads a subset of this in order to speed up location lookups (preventing the iPhone from having to query Apple's database directly in order to use it to help Location Services). This also means the iPhone can benefit from the database even without a data connection.
Slashdot Mirror
Except the story is based on a false premise. Apple doesn't ban apps that use the police department's data.
Extremely few people are aware of such laws,
In NY it is on the written test for getting a license, as well as what the legal limit is for BAC.
What percentage of drivers today took a test with that question?
But, you have to remember that rights are more important than a single life.
You mean the right Apple has to decide which apps it will or will not sell, right? No one is saying you don't have the right to warn others about a DUI checkpoint (although it may be illegal in some states, I don't know. But that's outside of the scope of the issuance at hand).
Who's blaming an app? They are saying it aids, not "is the reason for". It's not the "either-or" you are making it out to be.
Apple generally tries to be a responsible member of the community. Not aiding drunk drivers seems like a responsible thing to do.
Reason #437 to dislike the Apple App Store. Publishing data on police checkpoints is neither illegal nor immoral. This is publicly available information (police departments frequently publish it themselves). This is yet another arbitrary restriction on Apple's part.
Apps that use published data are allowed.
This isn't arbitrary, it's a voluntary choice Apple made at the request of lawmakers, and it can simply be summed up as Apple saying, "we don't want to help people drive drunk".
It's funny, on the one hand, Apple is supposed to be this evil, money-seeking monster, and when they voluntarily give up revenue from a category of apps with no monetary gain to be had for doing so, they are evil for that, regardless of their intentions.
You don't have to agree with Appe, but it's difficult to argue their motivation here.
Your state can't make laws that violate the US Constitution. You're basically saying that they made a law which violates the fourth and fifth amendments under some circumstances.
He wasn't making a slippery slope argument. He never said this would lead to that. He was saying they are both based on the same notion.
The roads are public. Making use of them should not force one to give up their constitutional rights like this. Especially not something so extreme and fundamental as these checkpoints do.
The way you talk, it's like you are on a vicarious power trip. It's really disturbing.
That's not how it works. Calling it an "agreement" is highly misleading. Extremely few people are aware of such laws, so how can the rest be said to have actually "agreed" to it?
Not that this changes the effect of these laws, but it's not like most people have ever specifically made a statement like, "yes, I agee to be subject to random DUI checkpoints". For most people, where such laws exist, it's not so much that they ever have specifically agreed to these things, but more that they are subject to such laws due to being under qualifying jurisdiction, licensing, and behavior.
Additionally, just because something is the law, or is buried in an agreement (either explicitly, ot implicitly), does not automatically make it right or beyond reproach or even constitutional.
The data isn't just the WiFi access points and cell towers it sees, but hundreds and thousands of additional APs and towers that are in the local area that it hasn't seen, and most likely will never see.
The iPhone sends a small set of radio signals it has seen to Apple, and Apple's servers send back a comparably huge dataset so that if you drive 20 or even possibly 100 miles away from where you've been, it already has coordinates for towers and APs that it will see in this new area, allowing for much quicker GPS acquisition.
Umm... That's not malware.
So, no, you don't have a link to any malware for iOS from the App Store. There are much easier ways to communicate that, though.
The spike started in 2005 with music sales, which is exactly my point. Apple takes 30% of the top of other people's content, and that is where most of their revenue comes from. They don't need a huge staff to make money off other people's products.
Apple doesn't profit very much from their App/Music/Book/Video/etc. stores. These are primarily created to provide an added value to their hardware products.
Apple lists their numbers. For example, they have sold 15 billion songs (that's $5 billion in revenue (not profit) since 2005) and have paid $2.5 billion to app developers (that's $830 million in revenue (not profit) since 2008.
Apple takes in more than those two stores combined, in pure profit, every four months or so.
That's still a *LOT* less of a "functional nightmare" than having multiple buildings housing a similar number of people, which is one of the problems Apple is solving here.
Most legislators in our County just stay quiet to avoid asking dumb questions at public budget meetings. Then again, some do not, and do look at the very least sound ignorant to anything going on in the IT world.
Wouldn't that be why you ask questions, because you are ignorant about something?
And Slashdot was already taken...
Do you have a link to malware that is, or ever has been, available on the App Store?
Do you have anything to support this? Because it seems as though the iphone is just storing the cell tower and wifi locations it picks up when it connects to them, nothing it would need to retrieve from Apple.
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2011/04/27location_qa.html
Makes sense. I thought you were saying iOS isn't secure, not that jailbreaking isn't a security issue.
What does that have to do with now?
Try Android. Install apps from any source and on most phones/tablets you can get a root shell.
Hell, install apps on Android from other sources, and EVERYONE gets a root shell!
Yawn, another idiotic post putting forth the notion that Apple is hell bent on locking down Mac OS X like iOS.
It may be good business for Apple, and good for Apple shareholders
But it's NOT good business for Apple or their shareholders. That's the disconnect here. It make no sense for Apple to hobble their PCs like this. It makes them less valuable, and fewer people will buy them.
How is that good business?
There's some apples to oranges here and I'll explain why. On iOS in order to update any of the apps Apple must release a full package (600MB+) and you must connect it to a computer and sync to receive these updates. On Android the updates are broken up into two categories, system and applications. The system update can be received over the air, but has the problem you have mentioned of being slow to come from manufacturers & cellular companies. The applications updates have been much quicker and are easily updated by anyone with market access.
I'm sure there was a point here, but I'm not sure what it is supposed to be.
Again, not on the main market. There were some less dangerous things found in the main market, just like on iOS. However, Google remotely removed those just like Apple would. You also know what an application is going to use when you install on Android, whereas iOS could be using anything (aside from location services).
Outright malware has been found on the main Android Marketplace. And you're, Google has, on multiple occasions, remotely killed apps. Something which Apple would do, but has never had to do.
So, you're equating Apple's kill switch, which they've never used, to Google's kill switch, which they have had to use time and again?
Right, because we *never* hear about rejected apps!
The whole premise is stupid. Apple wouldn't reject an app on the grounds of being too useful.
It most certainly *is* a cache. It's a cached subset of Apple location database.
Apple has a large database of the geographic locations of WiFi access points and cell towers. The database is very large, and ever changing, so it makes no sense (and is probably impossible) to keep on the device in its entirety, so the iPhone downloads a subset of this in order to speed up location lookups (preventing the iPhone from having to query Apple's database directly in order to use it to help Location Services). This also means the iPhone can benefit from the database even without a data connection.
Is Slashdot testing out a new "stupid" filter, that renders qualifying posts in monospace?