Well, now I'm more confused. I don't know if you're still disagreeing with me or not. I did state I wanted more detailed security options, like what you said you wanted. I'm pretty sure I didn't imply I was alone in this.
Personally, I'd rather have a procedure like happens when an app requests access to the location data, but this is yet another situation where Apple's "walled garden" provides value to the average user.
I disagree, and I live in that walled garden. I would much prefer each app ask me for the permissions it needs, every single one of them, before it has access to my data.
If you were to re-read what I wrote, I think you'd find you don't disagree with me.
You don't, but Apple does. I'm sure it's their policy to reject an app that accesses a user's contact list or calendar (for example) which doesn't reasonably make use of.
Personally, I'd rather have a procedure like happens when an app requests access to the location data, but this is yet another situation where Apple's "walled garden" provides value to the average user.
A web app is going to be more generic. Sure, you could write a web page specifically for the iPad, and one for the iPhone, etc., but if you're going to do that, why not make a native app? It's easier, faster, and going to be more capable.
Even if your app isn't going to do anything that can't be done in HTML and JavaScript, you're still going to be able to make a better native app for a given amount of effort. Also, by making an app, it's like giving the user a bookmark to your site, which increases the odds that they'll use your service again in the future.
Unless your site is extremely simple, there's not much reason to not look into making a native app.
Well, that covers you, and many thousands of other geeks. Fortunately (and quite understandably), Apple makes their products more suitable for the rest of us.
Besides, it's not like if Apple were to suddenly remove the need for iTunes that you'd suddenly buy an iPad. The number of people for whom iTunes is the sole reason they won't buy an iPad is extremely small, and wholly ignorable.
You're focusing on the wrong thing. People don't give a shit about whether iTunes is 80MB, or that it's technically possible to make a tablet that doesn't need it. Any slowness is a small price to pay for ease of use. Syncing with iTunes is a million times easier than any of the alternatives out there, including just drag and drop in explorer, unless you are a geek, in which case you should be aware that you're not average.
For most people, iTunes is a life saver, warts and all.
The irony level of your post is off the charts. Anti-Apple people (not those that just don't have or use Apple products, but those that specifically wax on about how they stay away from Apple) have been smug for decades now. They relish in their superior discernment in not falling victim to "overpriced" and "limited" products, and quite proudly proclaim they are not mindless cult members.
If the geek-market mattered, Linux would be a notable consumer OS, but it's not. Also, Android's present success on phones has absolutely nothing to do with being able to drag and drop files onto it. The percentage of users who care is minuscule.
Not a chance. HTML5 is going to be very important, but nothing tops a native app. That's because web sites have to be mostly universal (you might have a mobile version of your site, but that's about it). Apps designed specifically for a device are almost always much nicer than a web interface.
Simple. If making a good tablet isn't enough to sell a good tablet, that means that the demand for tablets is being driven by Apple rather than a need for tablets.
That's not what it means at all. It means that other tablet makers simply can't compete with Apple. No product can sell well without a good distribution channel, and even assuming all else is equal, Apple's distribution channel is head and shoulders above those of its competitors.
Additionally, if the need was real, then similar products should be also be popular particularly if they enter the market with a lower price point because price-conscious customers should prefer the cheaper alternatives.
That would only be true if these tablets were a commodity or fungible, and also of sufficient quality. Hardware-wise, the competition is... sufficient. The iPad is much more desirable, except for some geek-type consumers, but the Xoom hardware would be just fine for a lot of people, especially if Motorola could sell them cheaper than they are now. But on the software side, Android just doesn't cut it. That's a huge barrier to non-iPad adoption.
I'm not convinced that tablets are a fad. However, while I do see a lot of potential for their use in niche areas, I have little desire for one and I have to wonder if they will have staying power.
They're definitely not a fad. Tablets will be popular devices for many years to come, and only fade out once something even better comes along (which doesn't seem likely any time soon, but that's the nature of these things, they show up fairly quickly). They also aren't going to be a niche. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if tablets weren't the primary computer for most people ten years from now. I know this is difficult for many geeks to even comprehend, but people don't generally like their PCs themselves, they like what they can do for them. Apply a few generations of Moore's law to the current iPad, and it's difficult to see why most people are going to want a big bulky PC.
Just for the hell of it: if You can't be infected by something you can't run, the logical consequence would be to never run anything.
That's not the logical consequence. That's an absurd consequence. There's nothing inherent in my statement that suggests taking absurd measures. Security isn't binary. You cull the severe risks, and manage the lesser ones.
I did misinterpret your original reply, though. When you said you weren't being serious, I thought you were referring to your argument as a whole (which I got quite clearly, you were trying to dismiss my claim that iOS is more secure for not running Flash by pretending it must be taken to its most absurd extreme). You are correct that your absurd logic shouldn't be taken as serious, however that still leaves me wondering why make the statement in the first place?
But don't take that as something personal. Of course the real thing to do is to avoid significant security risks. (Such as, just to try and stay on topic, fishing a message out of junk and open whatever attachment it comes with.)
Sure, because that worked out so well, didn't it? It's far too easy to accidentally or unwittingly run an attachment. Better to do away with something like Flash in the first place. It's of dubious value on something like a phone or a tablet. It's not like we're talking about eschewing an established, modern, popular OS for an archaic OS that no one uses or develops for. Just not using an optional web plug-in that is notorious for security issues.
Presently, Flash is highly irrelevant on mobile devices. Why take on the unnecessary risk?
What OS has never had remote exploits? iOS has had exactly one. And it was never turned into a malicious exploit. And it has long been patched. What other OS would you possibly label as being notably insecure for having had one remote exploit in five years, which has long since been patched? I assume this sort of scrutiny and aversion applies only to OS's from fruit-themed companies, since that's the only thing consistent on this topic around here.
After all, there have been multiple remote exploits for Android.
How does that even make any sense? iOS is quite secure, including not being vulnerable to Flash exploits, and if Steve Jobs only wants people to use iOS as "toys", why does Apple sell five creative and business apps for it?
Just because iPhone is a cool phone doesn't make it the best at everything.
I wonder where you got the idea that anyone is claiming that it is.
iPhone is a lot like Windows when it comes to people trying to PWN it, so I would say it is probably one of the riskiest phones you can use.
You would say that, but that doesn't make it true. Risk requires actual malicious code. Android is many orders of magnitude more risky than iOS, due to the simple fact that there has been plenty of malware for Android (some of which distributed on the Android Market). The only iOS malware that has ever existed has been for jailbroken devices--which is to say, for devices which the user has deliberately compromised the security of their device.
How you can think this is the sign of a "risky" OS is beyond me.
Remember, Google has had to use their remote "kill switch" on multiple occasions. The very same "kill switch" that everyone got all worked up over when it was presumed that Apple had it on iOS, but has never actually used.
Which explains why the iOS is never jailbroken ever.
What system is invulnerable to the user itself? Once an iOS device is jailbroken, it's essentially a standard UNIX system. The security system that can be jailbroken is a significant security enhancement beyond any other consumer OS.
Why jobs doesn't want that POS on Iphones or Ipads!
Easily turned around. Considering it was phishing based attack, you could quite as easily say its no wonder that Jobs doesn't want people actually using iPhones or iPads as anything other than toys.
How does that even make any sense? iOS is quite secure, including not being vulnerable to Flash exploits, and if Steve Jobs only wants people to use iOS as "toys", why does Apple sell five creative and business apps for it?
The only thing you got correct in your post is that this was a phishing attack.
His point is that MS's DOS success built the rest of MS. For comparison, Apple could have completely failed with the Mac and still succeeded immensely with iPod. The US needed a revolution, the same way MS needed DOS. Remove Walkman and PlayStation from Sony and they are still successful.
Are you starting to get it yet?
Without DOS, MS would still be around today, but they would not be the huge company they are now. If you can't grasp this, by all means call it "idiotic" and continue in your ignorance.
This just in, geek on Slashdot thinks Linux is better than Windows, and is confused into thinking his opinion reflects consumers in general. News at 11.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, now I'm more confused. I don't know if you're still disagreeing with me or not. I did state I wanted more detailed security options, like what you said you wanted. I'm pretty sure I didn't imply I was alone in this.
We may just have to agree to agree on this...?
Personally, I'd rather have a procedure like happens when an app requests access to the location data, but this is yet another situation where Apple's "walled garden" provides value to the average user.
I disagree, and I live in that walled garden. I would much prefer each app ask me for the permissions it needs, every single one of them, before it has access to my data.
If you were to re-read what I wrote, I think you'd find you don't disagree with me.
You don't, but Apple does. I'm sure it's their policy to reject an app that accesses a user's contact list or calendar (for example) which doesn't reasonably make use of.
Personally, I'd rather have a procedure like happens when an app requests access to the location data, but this is yet another situation where Apple's "walled garden" provides value to the average user.
A web app is going to be more generic. Sure, you could write a web page specifically for the iPad, and one for the iPhone, etc., but if you're going to do that, why not make a native app? It's easier, faster, and going to be more capable.
Even if your app isn't going to do anything that can't be done in HTML and JavaScript, you're still going to be able to make a better native app for a given amount of effort. Also, by making an app, it's like giving the user a bookmark to your site, which increases the odds that they'll use your service again in the future.
Unless your site is extremely simple, there's not much reason to not look into making a native app.
Well, that covers you, and many thousands of other geeks. Fortunately (and quite understandably), Apple makes their products more suitable for the rest of us.
Besides, it's not like if Apple were to suddenly remove the need for iTunes that you'd suddenly buy an iPad. The number of people for whom iTunes is the sole reason they won't buy an iPad is extremely small, and wholly ignorable.
You're focusing on the wrong thing. People don't give a shit about whether iTunes is 80MB, or that it's technically possible to make a tablet that doesn't need it. Any slowness is a small price to pay for ease of use. Syncing with iTunes is a million times easier than any of the alternatives out there, including just drag and drop in explorer, unless you are a geek, in which case you should be aware that you're not average.
For most people, iTunes is a life saver, warts and all.
The irony level of your post is off the charts. Anti-Apple people (not those that just don't have or use Apple products, but those that specifically wax on about how they stay away from Apple) have been smug for decades now. They relish in their superior discernment in not falling victim to "overpriced" and "limited" products, and quite proudly proclaim they are not mindless cult members.
If the geek-market mattered, Linux would be a notable consumer OS, but it's not. Also, Android's present success on phones has absolutely nothing to do with being able to drag and drop files onto it. The percentage of users who care is minuscule.
Not a chance. HTML5 is going to be very important, but nothing tops a native app. That's because web sites have to be mostly universal (you might have a mobile version of your site, but that's about it). Apps designed specifically for a device are almost always much nicer than a web interface.
Simple. If making a good tablet isn't enough to sell a good tablet, that means that the demand for tablets is being driven by Apple rather than a need for tablets.
That's not what it means at all. It means that other tablet makers simply can't compete with Apple. No product can sell well without a good distribution channel, and even assuming all else is equal, Apple's distribution channel is head and shoulders above those of its competitors.
Additionally, if the need was real, then similar products should be also be popular particularly if they enter the market with a lower price point because price-conscious customers should prefer the cheaper alternatives.
That would only be true if these tablets were a commodity or fungible, and also of sufficient quality. Hardware-wise, the competition is... sufficient. The iPad is much more desirable, except for some geek-type consumers, but the Xoom hardware would be just fine for a lot of people, especially if Motorola could sell them cheaper than they are now. But on the software side, Android just doesn't cut it. That's a huge barrier to non-iPad adoption.
I'm not convinced that tablets are a fad. However, while I do see a lot of potential for their use in niche areas, I have little desire for one and I have to wonder if they will have staying power.
They're definitely not a fad. Tablets will be popular devices for many years to come, and only fade out once something even better comes along (which doesn't seem likely any time soon, but that's the nature of these things, they show up fairly quickly). They also aren't going to be a niche. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if tablets weren't the primary computer for most people ten years from now. I know this is difficult for many geeks to even comprehend, but people don't generally like their PCs themselves, they like what they can do for them. Apply a few generations of Moore's law to the current iPad, and it's difficult to see why most people are going to want a big bulky PC.
It's called manslaughter (and sometimes murder or homocide, depending on the details).
Just for the hell of it: if You can't be infected by something you can't run, the logical consequence would be to never run anything.
That's not the logical consequence. That's an absurd consequence. There's nothing inherent in my statement that suggests taking absurd measures. Security isn't binary. You cull the severe risks, and manage the lesser ones.
I did misinterpret your original reply, though. When you said you weren't being serious, I thought you were referring to your argument as a whole (which I got quite clearly, you were trying to dismiss my claim that iOS is more secure for not running Flash by pretending it must be taken to its most absurd extreme). You are correct that your absurd logic shouldn't be taken as serious, however that still leaves me wondering why make the statement in the first place?
But don't take that as something personal. Of course the real thing to do is to avoid significant security risks. (Such as, just to try and stay on topic, fishing a message out of junk and open whatever attachment it comes with.)
Sure, because that worked out so well, didn't it? It's far too easy to accidentally or unwittingly run an attachment. Better to do away with something like Flash in the first place. It's of dubious value on something like a phone or a tablet. It's not like we're talking about eschewing an established, modern, popular OS for an archaic OS that no one uses or develops for. Just not using an optional web plug-in that is notorious for security issues.
Presently, Flash is highly irrelevant on mobile devices. Why take on the unnecessary risk?
What OS has never had remote exploits? iOS has had exactly one. And it was never turned into a malicious exploit. And it has long been patched. What other OS would you possibly label as being notably insecure for having had one remote exploit in five years, which has long since been patched? I assume this sort of scrutiny and aversion applies only to OS's from fruit-themed companies, since that's the only thing consistent on this topic around here.
After all, there have been multiple remote exploits for Android.
No, you can't.
Well, I suppose that's one way to recover from saying something that doesn't make any sense...
Care to clarify the actual purpose of your original reply?
You're not being very clear. What OS, including iOS, is invulnerable to users deliberately hacking their own device?
How does that even make any sense? iOS is quite secure, including not being vulnerable to Flash exploits, and if Steve Jobs only wants people to use iOS as "toys", why does Apple sell five creative and business apps for it?
Just because iPhone is a cool phone doesn't make it the best at everything.
I wonder where you got the idea that anyone is claiming that it is.
You can hack an iPhone by visiting a webpage,
Not anymore.
it also got hacked the 2nd day of pwn2own.
Everything gets hacked at pwn2own.
iPhone is a lot like Windows when it comes to people trying to PWN it, so I would say it is probably one of the riskiest phones you can use.
You would say that, but that doesn't make it true. Risk requires actual malicious code. Android is many orders of magnitude more risky than iOS, due to the simple fact that there has been plenty of malware for Android (some of which distributed on the Android Market). The only iOS malware that has ever existed has been for jailbroken devices--which is to say, for devices which the user has deliberately compromised the security of their device.
How you can think this is the sign of a "risky" OS is beyond me.
Remember, Google has had to use their remote "kill switch" on multiple occasions. The very same "kill switch" that everyone got all worked up over when it was presumed that Apple had it on iOS, but has never actually used.
Including not being vulnerable to Flash exploits?
Not being able to run something is a curious criterion for invulnerability.
No, it's actually quite logically sound. You can't be infected by something you can't run.
If we were to think like this, why not migrate to Multics. It's "not vulnerable" to almost anything under the sky.
No need to go to extremes. Simply avoiding significant security risks, like Flash and ActiveX, is a good start.
iOS is quite secure,
Which explains why the iOS is never jailbroken ever.
What system is invulnerable to the user itself? Once an iOS device is jailbroken, it's essentially a standard UNIX system. The security system that can be jailbroken is a significant security enhancement beyond any other consumer OS.
Why jobs doesn't want that POS on Iphones or Ipads!
Easily turned around. Considering it was phishing based attack, you could quite as easily say its no wonder that Jobs doesn't want people actually using iPhones or iPads as anything other than toys.
How does that even make any sense? iOS is quite secure, including not being vulnerable to Flash exploits, and if Steve Jobs only wants people to use iOS as "toys", why does Apple sell five creative and business apps for it?
The only thing you got correct in your post is that this was a phishing attack.
His point is that MS's DOS success built the rest of MS. For comparison, Apple could have completely failed with the Mac and still succeeded immensely with iPod. The US needed a revolution, the same way MS needed DOS. Remove Walkman and PlayStation from Sony and they are still successful.
Are you starting to get it yet?
Without DOS, MS would still be around today, but they would not be the huge company they are now. If you can't grasp this, by all means call it "idiotic" and continue in your ignorance.
Dedicated eBook Readers are not going to die until somebody makes a tablet that can be used when the lighting is not optimal.
Like in a dark room?
Just pointing out two issues that you brought up that don't really exist. No one is suggesting an iPad for programming on.
This just in, geek on Slashdot thinks Linux is better than Windows, and is confused into thinking his opinion reflects consumers in general. News at 11.
And the vast majority of 'drivers' circa 1900 wanted a faster horse.
Of course, they were wrong too.
XP is the "faster horse" here, Linux is the donkey, and iOS is the automobile.