Well, that's quite reasonable (if a bit on the far end of the curve).
I think the main problem is that if that's even an option, far too many people would turn it on (either knowingly or unknowingly), only to later find themselves running afoul of one of the many scenarios a password-free purchasing system would allow.
The part I don't quite get is, how often do you need to type your password? When you buy from the stores (and there's a timeout period during which you don't need to type it). This can't be all that often, even for the most voracious App/Book/Music/Movie/TV Show buyer, can it?
So that you are saying is that Apple should be sued by the EU? Gotcha.
Nice try, doublethinker. He said the exact opposite.
I mean after all, Apple actively prevents you from installing another main OS on its iProducts, does it not? Or, are you saying that this only applies to Windows and it is OK because it is Apple?
MS never got in trouble for that either. Where did you get such a ridiculous notion?
No, the fact is that you can buy any phone you want, iPhone, Android, Windows, etc. Apple doesn't force anyone to buy an iPhone, and they don't have anything monopolistic in place to abuse, the way MS has had in the past.
The only "monopoly" Apple has is over their own products, and that's not a monopoly, that's the definition of being the proprietor of a product. And that's also the answer to your troll question: no, that's not OK because "it's Apple", it's OK because the iPhone is Apple's product *and* they aren't using their product to unfairly manipulate a market.
As I said, it has gotten better. But it's not that long since it asked for a password simply to update an already installed application.
Then what the fuck are you complaining about?
And, no, I don't want it to ask me for my password when I buy something on a device I have previously authenticated on. Tell me the price and ask for confirmation, yes, but ask me for password, no.
Tell that to parents who hand their iPhones to their kids, or hell, even just being around some asshole acquaintances that might think it's funny.
Or losing your phone and some stranger finding it and going to town with your account.
Not to mention yourself, accidentally clicking the "buy" button.
Yeah, right, they just magically put in answers to your security questions for you.
Most likely you were prompted at some point to put them in, and being the clever but paranoid (and more than slightly annoyed at the time) geek that you are, you gave them bullshit responses (so that someone who knows you can't put in the info, like they are going to check which school you went to and who your childhood friend was, or whatever!). The only problem is that you didn't write them down and totally forgot about it.
That, or, yeah, somehow those questions just got magically entered by a ghost or something...
This makes me suspect that Apple deliberately started rumors that they were working on a "smartwatch" simply to trick other companies into wasting effort into actually developing such a useless product.
I doubt it. Such a plan would backfire for the simple fact that Samsung's R&D on the matter requires an actual product to either copy (iOS) or co-opt (Android).
Yeah, it would allow people to view sites like Netflix and Hulu without a plugin. Oh, the horror!
Here's the thing. DRM exists. It's not going to go away because a bunch of reactionaries leave it out of some web standard. That's because it already doesn't exist in that web standard! And DRM is doing quite fine without it.
What this will do, instead, is hasten the demise of Flash and Silverlight. Video that is currently DRM'd will now be available without a plugin, right from the browser. This gives the consumer more choice.
What it will not do is all of a sudden turn every web video into a DRM'd stream. It means more video, not less.
Yeah, right. No one ever says "my thinkpad" or "my Nexus 7" or "my Galaxy S3"...
Apple owners aren't the brain-dead "slaves" you think they are. The problem is your assumptions are flawed, namely that people don't have any good reasons, other than "fashion", to buy Apple products. That flaw in understanding is entirely yours. It's an emotion-motivated display of ignorance.
Except it's not worse, it's just slower (except in the US) in one benchmark.
But you are right that most people don't care about that. They care about the experience in using it, which explains why the iPhone 5 outsells the Galaxy S3. It explains why the iPhone 4S outsells the Galaxy S3. It also explains why the iPhone 4 outsells the Galaxy S3.
The first lot of Retina displays all came from Samsung.
No, they used both Samsung and LG from the beginning, unless by "first lot" you mean literally the very first batch off the assembly line.
Apple got a reputation for having really good screens in their retina product line and have now switched to the lowest bidder, at the expense of quality.
Yes, Google gives all that stuff away in the hopes of making money on advertising revenue.
And they do make money.
But advertising to people who really don't want it (to the point they would actively block it) costs money.
It costs money to advertise to everyone else, too.
The evil marketing firms of the world can still survive in a world with AdBlock et al
It's not about 'survival', it's about making as much money as possible.
I really don't think you've thought this through, other than as a way to pretend like AdBlock is a good thing for Google and the advertisers. It's not (hence this story). But it is good for the users and there are plenty enough good reasons to use it without resorting to far-fetched rationalizations.
It's not a good thing or a bad thing. It's a different thing,
Of course it's a good thing or bad thing, or more specifically, a thing that has very prominent bad aspects. By saying that it's merely a "different thing", you are completely dismissing any criticism of it.
and the culture will change to accommodate it.
Yes, it will. Fundamentally because it's likely a very bad thing. Humans have lived for millions of years with the majority of the things they do being mostly ephemeral. With tech like Glass, the fear is that absolutely everything you've ever done will be searchable indefinitely.
But you're definitely right that society will adapt (this is sort of a silly point to make, no matter what happens, so long as society exists it will adapt to changes, it can't do otherwise).
You mean "writable executable pages," not directory memory access.
Yes, that's what I'm referring to. Thanks for wasting 2/3 of your post elaborating on that.
However, even given that, I find it impossible that there's no way Apple could give UIWebView access to the JIT. It would just take some amount of effort to architect it and write it, and the end result would probably make their own Safari more secure, but why bother doing that when you can just make every other browser on the platform be unnecessarily slower?
"Could", probably. But you demonstrate exactly why they didn't (assuming it can be done in the first place). And that is, it takes effort.
So many Apple-haters (and hackers in general (not implying significant overlap between the other than the following)) seem to think that all you have to do is imagine something, and that's the end of it. "Why doesn't Apple implement X? All it takes is Y!" Well, imagine you have someone following you around all day asking you that? There are more things you *could* do individually that you *can't* do collectively, due to lack of time if nothing else. It's silly to complain about this.
And it's a sidetrack anyway (like your exposition on a term I miswrote, as though "ooh, look, he used the wrong words, therefore if I elaborate, that means he's stupid and I'm smart so I win the argument"). It doesn't answer *why* they didn't do it. You imply they did it just to fuck over other apps, which is downright absurd. They didn't do it because either they decided they can't, or that it's too much effort to do right now at the very least. There's no way that Apple decided to make all third-party apps slower at javascript deliberately, it harms the entire platform.
You can give the binary to as many people as you want. They can't run it, but you can give it to them. But more to the point, you can get the source, which is the main requirement. No one is obligated to give away the binary.
I think you mean the one that has direct memory access in Safari vs the sandboxed one open to other apps to prevent security issues from affecting the platform.
What are you talking about? Apple doesn't force anyone to use Apple products. The WebKit requirement is not about forcing people to use Safari (which isn't a discrete product), but about keeping the quality in the iOS App Store higher.
As an iOS user, I benefit from every app that does web rendering will have a relatively consistently high level of quality. I also don't have to worry about a bug in the app becoming a security risk.
It's ok to not value those two things as much as someone else does. I don't have a problem with how Google does it, it's just not to my liking, but I'm glad they're around for those that do prefer things that way.
I do have a big problem with Mozilla, though. They are the biggest bunch of hypocrites on the planet, and they put ideology ahead of quality. As a user, I can't comprehend why I'm expected to make that trade.
Don't you know? Around here, if you buy something that someone here doesn't like, and it isn't cheaper than the thing the other person does like, you're an idiot who has more money than brains, and should be ashamed of yourself!
Unless its a Pixel or Glass or Galaxy SIII, but otherwise...
Quite a thorny matter. It's just a matter of deciding wether the reasons that brought those fines to microsoft apply to apple too. And i don't see why they shouldn't. DISCLAIMER: i personally can't wait for the total demise of apple.
Apple isn't a monopoly, but more to this specific point, they aren't abusing the market, which is what MS did. There's nothing wrong with being a monopoly, but when you abuse your monopoly, you open yourself to legal intervention.
There's tons of GPL software on the App Store. The only reason VLC was pulled was that one of the developers complained. An Apple hater didn't want his software on the App Store.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, that's quite reasonable (if a bit on the far end of the curve).
I think the main problem is that if that's even an option, far too many people would turn it on (either knowingly or unknowingly), only to later find themselves running afoul of one of the many scenarios a password-free purchasing system would allow.
The part I don't quite get is, how often do you need to type your password? When you buy from the stores (and there's a timeout period during which you don't need to type it). This can't be all that often, even for the most voracious App/Book/Music/Movie/TV Show buyer, can it?
So that you are saying is that Apple should be sued by the EU? Gotcha.
Nice try, doublethinker. He said the exact opposite.
I mean after all, Apple actively prevents you from installing another main OS on its iProducts, does it not? Or, are you saying that this only applies to Windows and it is OK because it is Apple?
MS never got in trouble for that either. Where did you get such a ridiculous notion?
No, the fact is that you can buy any phone you want, iPhone, Android, Windows, etc. Apple doesn't force anyone to buy an iPhone, and they don't have anything monopolistic in place to abuse, the way MS has had in the past.
The only "monopoly" Apple has is over their own products, and that's not a monopoly, that's the definition of being the proprietor of a product. And that's also the answer to your troll question: no, that's not OK because "it's Apple", it's OK because the iPhone is Apple's product *and* they aren't using their product to unfairly manipulate a market.
As I said, it has gotten better. But it's not that long since it asked for a password simply to update an already installed application.
Then what the fuck are you complaining about?
And, no, I don't want it to ask me for my password when I buy something on a device I have previously authenticated on. Tell me the price and ask for confirmation, yes, but ask me for password, no.
Tell that to parents who hand their iPhones to their kids, or hell, even just being around some asshole acquaintances that might think it's funny.
Or losing your phone and some stranger finding it and going to town with your account.
Not to mention yourself, accidentally clicking the "buy" button.
Yeah, right, they just magically put in answers to your security questions for you.
Most likely you were prompted at some point to put them in, and being the clever but paranoid (and more than slightly annoyed at the time) geek that you are, you gave them bullshit responses (so that someone who knows you can't put in the info, like they are going to check which school you went to and who your childhood friend was, or whatever!). The only problem is that you didn't write them down and totally forgot about it.
That, or, yeah, somehow those questions just got magically entered by a ghost or something...
Second largest? Yeah, right... Twitter and YouTube have far more people using them.
This "fact" you are parroting is an unsubstantiated "report" that completely defies observation.
This makes me suspect that Apple deliberately started rumors that they were working on a "smartwatch" simply to trick other companies into wasting effort into actually developing such a useless product.
I doubt it. Such a plan would backfire for the simple fact that Samsung's R&D on the matter requires an actual product to either copy (iOS) or co-opt (Android).
Yeah, it would allow people to view sites like Netflix and Hulu without a plugin. Oh, the horror!
Here's the thing. DRM exists. It's not going to go away because a bunch of reactionaries leave it out of some web standard. That's because it already doesn't exist in that web standard! And DRM is doing quite fine without it.
What this will do, instead, is hasten the demise of Flash and Silverlight. Video that is currently DRM'd will now be available without a plugin, right from the browser. This gives the consumer more choice.
What it will not do is all of a sudden turn every web video into a DRM'd stream. It means more video, not less.
Yeah, right. No one ever says "my thinkpad" or "my Nexus 7" or "my Galaxy S3"...
Apple owners aren't the brain-dead "slaves" you think they are. The problem is your assumptions are flawed, namely that people don't have any good reasons, other than "fashion", to buy Apple products. That flaw in understanding is entirely yours. It's an emotion-motivated display of ignorance.
Except it's not worse, it's just slower (except in the US) in one benchmark.
But you are right that most people don't care about that. They care about the experience in using it, which explains why the iPhone 5 outsells the Galaxy S3. It explains why the iPhone 4S outsells the Galaxy S3. It also explains why the iPhone 4 outsells the Galaxy S3.
Almost everything you've typed is wrong:
They used to.
They still do.
They switched to LG, now they get shit LCD's.
No, and the LG LCDs aren't shit.
The first lot of Retina displays all came from Samsung.
No, they used both Samsung and LG from the beginning, unless by "first lot" you mean literally the very first batch off the assembly line.
Apple got a reputation for having really good screens in their retina product line and have now switched to the lowest bidder, at the expense of quality.
There's more to it than that.
Um... You do realize they do get their displays from Samsung, right?
Wow, what a self-rightous prick! Most people who use adblock are too stupid to do it themselves, and people in marketing are amoral "human garbage"?
Yes, Google gives all that stuff away in the hopes of making money on advertising revenue.
And they do make money.
But advertising to people who really don't want it (to the point they would actively block it) costs money.
It costs money to advertise to everyone else, too.
The evil marketing firms of the world can still survive in a world with AdBlock et al
It's not about 'survival', it's about making as much money as possible.
I really don't think you've thought this through, other than as a way to pretend like AdBlock is a good thing for Google and the advertisers. It's not (hence this story). But it is good for the users and there are plenty enough good reasons to use it without resorting to far-fetched rationalizations.
It's not a good thing or a bad thing. It's a different thing,
Of course it's a good thing or bad thing, or more specifically, a thing that has very prominent bad aspects. By saying that it's merely a "different thing", you are completely dismissing any criticism of it.
and the culture will change to accommodate it.
Yes, it will. Fundamentally because it's likely a very bad thing. Humans have lived for millions of years with the majority of the things they do being mostly ephemeral. With tech like Glass, the fear is that absolutely everything you've ever done will be searchable indefinitely.
But you're definitely right that society will adapt (this is sort of a silly point to make, no matter what happens, so long as society exists it will adapt to changes, it can't do otherwise).
Yeah, they keep driving them, but they wouldn't download a car.
You mean "writable executable pages," not directory memory access.
Yes, that's what I'm referring to. Thanks for wasting 2/3 of your post elaborating on that.
However, even given that, I find it impossible that there's no way Apple could give UIWebView access to the JIT. It would just take some amount of effort to architect it and write it, and the end result would probably make their own Safari more secure, but why bother doing that when you can just make every other browser on the platform be unnecessarily slower?
"Could", probably. But you demonstrate exactly why they didn't (assuming it can be done in the first place). And that is, it takes effort.
So many Apple-haters (and hackers in general (not implying significant overlap between the other than the following)) seem to think that all you have to do is imagine something, and that's the end of it. "Why doesn't Apple implement X? All it takes is Y!" Well, imagine you have someone following you around all day asking you that? There are more things you *could* do individually that you *can't* do collectively, due to lack of time if nothing else. It's silly to complain about this.
And it's a sidetrack anyway (like your exposition on a term I miswrote, as though "ooh, look, he used the wrong words, therefore if I elaborate, that means he's stupid and I'm smart so I win the argument"). It doesn't answer *why* they didn't do it. You imply they did it just to fuck over other apps, which is downright absurd. They didn't do it because either they decided they can't, or that it's too much effort to do right now at the very least. There's no way that Apple decided to make all third-party apps slower at javascript deliberately, it harms the entire platform.
You can give the binary to as many people as you want. They can't run it, but you can give it to them. But more to the point, you can get the source, which is the main requirement. No one is obligated to give away the binary.
I think you mean the one that has direct memory access in Safari vs the sandboxed one open to other apps to prevent security issues from affecting the platform.
What are you talking about? Apple doesn't force anyone to use Apple products. The WebKit requirement is not about forcing people to use Safari (which isn't a discrete product), but about keeping the quality in the iOS App Store higher.
As an iOS user, I benefit from every app that does web rendering will have a relatively consistently high level of quality. I also don't have to worry about a bug in the app becoming a security risk.
It's ok to not value those two things as much as someone else does. I don't have a problem with how Google does it, it's just not to my liking, but I'm glad they're around for those that do prefer things that way.
I do have a big problem with Mozilla, though. They are the biggest bunch of hypocrites on the planet, and they put ideology ahead of quality. As a user, I can't comprehend why I'm expected to make that trade.
Don't you know? Around here, if you buy something that someone here doesn't like, and it isn't cheaper than the thing the other person does like, you're an idiot who has more money than brains, and should be ashamed of yourself!
Unless its a Pixel or Glass or Galaxy SIII, but otherwise...
Dear dinkypoo, don't worry about how I (or anyone else) spend my money.
Quite a thorny matter. It's just a matter of deciding wether the reasons that brought those fines to microsoft apply to apple too. And i don't see why they shouldn't. DISCLAIMER: i personally can't wait for the total demise of apple.
Apple isn't a monopoly, but more to this specific point, they aren't abusing the market, which is what MS did. There's nothing wrong with being a monopoly, but when you abuse your monopoly, you open yourself to legal intervention.
Yes, he respects users so much, he won't let them use software he helped with.
The GPL doesn't require DRM removal.
There's tons of GPL software on the App Store. The only reason VLC was pulled was that one of the developers complained. An Apple hater didn't want his software on the App Store.