This is incorrect. What is actually stored on the Apple servers in Virginia is metadata. This includes device keys for devices authorized on the account, and rights certificates to RE- download already downloaded content from the content distribution network.
Please quit speaking about things for which you have no understanding.
I have:
Contacts, bookmarks, songs (my original files, not Apple's versions), iWork documents, photographs, and a multitude of other files and data, stored in Apple's iCloud servers. All of which I can freely download at any time.
You are correct that any purchases I've made, along with songs Apple has been able to match, are not stored individually, but even all of those files are re-downloadable by me.
And I'm positive that you are not aware of the implementation details for the iCloud.
You have no clue when I'm aware of. I do wish you'd quit yapping about things you don't understand. You are focussing on something that is completely meaningless to the discussion at hand: the behind the scenes implementation, while completely ignoring the real discussion: access to the data.
This! I've sold software on Google Checkout/Wallet since day one, and always expect/demand customers data. I would like to get data from iOS sales too! This developer needs to get a job.
If you want my data, you are free to ask me for it. I'm quite offended to hear you "expect/demand" it. Why? It belongs to me, and if you want it, you may ask. If it's for income, just ask me to pay what your product is worth instead of tricking me with a low price and making up the difference with the theft of my personal data.
This is exactly why I prefer Apple's iOS ecosystem. I know what I'm getting into, and am in full control over my personal data. I'm much more happy to part with a bit more money than with most of my privacy.
If this were the iOS or Windows Phone stores, then yes, that would be true. But with Google Play, the developer actually IS the merchant.
The problem here is that it's not presented that way. The Play Store appears, to the customer, exactly like any other storefront. If it's really more like a flea market with individual merchants all collected together under one roof, instead of like a retail store, then this is something that is not only obscured to the buyer (which is a gross deception), it's also not even obvious to the developers, who seem quite surprised to receive this amount of info.
The Play Store itself is only an intermediary. The system is setup like any other online store where there are "ordered" and goods are "shipped". Blame the fact that Google basically grafted the paid Android store onto a system that was meant for real-world goods.
I blame the fact on the combination of Google not caring one whit about end user privacy, coupled with Google's greatest strength: they do things in the quick-and-dirty somewhat Unix-style. Instead of creating a monolithic retail system, they slap together a few subsystems and call it a day.
This is a strength when it comes to flexibility and speed of execution, but is a weakness when it comes to making something consistent and reliable for the user. I prefer products with well thought out designs, where every detail is worked over and refined, but I do also understand the appeal of the infinitely flexible. I won't tell anyone which they should prefer, but I will say that end users are being presented something that doesn't match the reality of the system being presented.
Honestly though, this isn't news. Every Android developer has known this for YEARS. And this is no different than any other online store out there.
The developers have known this, but this has been unknown to the users. I had no clue this happened (but assumed Google was nowhere near as protective of my privacy as Apple, so have kept that in the back of my mind when using the Play Store).
However, I really would have greatly preferred to know this ahead of time. This isn't some design detail which needn't be exposed to the end user, but something that really needs to be openly and clearly made aware of. For me, this is a breach of trust, and while I won't eschew Google's services altogether because of it, I also won't quickly forget this breach either.
Coke doesn't get my name when I buy their products in a store or at a restaurant. Levi doesn't either. Nor does Adobe when I buy their software at Best Buy. Or Lenovo or Microsoft or Sony. Neither does Rovio when I buy their apps on the App Store.
The problem here is that Google really doesn't care at all about privacy. It's not part of their corporate culture, and it can't be, when their entire business model is centered around exploiting data, not protecting it. Primary to any Google service is Google's wholesale commercial access to every bit of data you provide. Privacy is then applied secondarily, usually in the sense of keeping the personal data within Google's proprietary control, and only releasing aggregated and somewhat anonymized data to third parties, but that's just an afterthought. It's window dressing to make the initial privacy violation more digestible. Which for most of us here, it is... up to a point.
There are many things to like about Google, and I'm sure many here will (quite hypocritically) give up privacy in order to keep using the things they do like. I have no problem with this tradeoff if made knowingly, though it is annoying to hear people harp on with Benjamin Franklin quotes, then sell him down the river as fits their fancies.
It's things like this which makes Apple's system so appealing for many. With Apple, you can trust that your privacy is an inherent part of the system. With Google, you privacy is inherently compromised from the get-go. Even MS is miles ahead of Google with regards to privacy, and MS has historically been one of the most cynically profit-driven companies to ever exist!
Anyway, to your point, the developers already have my money. That's all they deserve from the transaction. If they want my name, email address, and location, they can ask for it. And if I'm willing to grant it, they can have it. Otherwise, they'll just have to settle for my money, which should be more than sufficient. If it's not, they can raise their prices, as I'd much rather pay up front for the things I use, rather than be on the hook with hidden costs that, unlike my checkbook, are often out of my control.
Every document stored in iCloud (music, tv shows, movies, contacts, apps, books,pages documents, etc.) are downloadable. If you couldn't, it would make for a shitty cloud (you can upload all you want, but you can never access your files? How does that even make any sense).
You can also store all of Apple's iCloud documents in other services. Gmail contacts, Amazon Music Locker, Dropbox, etc. I'm not sure you are aware of how iCloud works from the user's point of view.
As for logins, that's not what is being discussed. No one makes a fuss that you can't log into your gmail account using your own server's PAM configuration, or on your NT domain. No one complains that you have to sign into Netflix to watch your Netflix content. You're right that Cromebooks require a (somewhat ironic) Google account, and that it's something to consider. But even that lets you use iCloud, Evernote, Dropbox, whatever. That's just for logging in to your computer and (of course) to get ever more people using Google services.
> Now it's true that you could argue that people who buy into these ecosystems know what they are getting into, but that's nonetheless 5 examples of devices specifically tied to back end cloud services, with the easy potential for more devices as other vendors attempt to get into the Android/iPhone/Nook/Kindle/ChromeBook space themselves.
Except that wasn't my question. Where is this a problem? How is your data locked away? Even with the Chromebook, if you decide to buy an iPad instead, it's simple enough to transfer all your data into iCloud, of if you prefer, just keep using all the Google apps as is.
I'm definitely not saying there aren't downsides, or things to consider, just that having your data locked away isn't one of them.
Please cite and example of a cloud service where this has become an actual problem.
I'm unaware of any cloud files storage service that locks you in such that you can't move to another. They all let you download your files (they'd be fairly useless if they didn't!).
Ah, the iOS attitude. It seems like a deal until you realize the difficulty and cost of leaving. *This* is why having an open platform matters.
What's the cost of leaving? You just download your files (if you haven't already done so) and move on.
That's *much* cheaper than the cost of doing it yourself if you don't have the spare hardware and have no clue or desire how to even get started, maintain, and secure it. That's why the "iOS attitude" is so popular.
The kid is playing Minecraft, and the dad is writing up articles comparing VPS's with recycled home servers. I don't think either is so strapped for time as yo seem to think. Which is curious, since you are reading and posting on Slashdot, so clearly even your time isn't as important as you seem to be chastising other people for!
It's called "hobbies" and "fun" and "curiosity", you know, nerd characteristics. Quit taking things so seriously!
If it is only for minecraft? If so, and you are trying to pinch pennies, have the kid stop playing minecraft and get a job.
Sounds like you've quite completely misunderstood the intention. The Minecraft server is the primary requirement, not optional. Saving money is secondary to it. And forced child labor doesn't appear to be an option at all (and a somewhat disturbing suggestion regardless of the rest).
There's value in the actual doing of those arithmetic functions, as well as knowing which ones to do, having hard numbers to put into them, sharing them for others to benefit from, and even simply thinking to do them in the first place.
I don't think it was meant to impress you with its brilliance, was meant to contribute greatly to society, or to help earn a PhD. It seems to me it was meant to answer a question, and by sharing, perhaps answer a question others might have. Not everyone (i.e., you), but some. Nerds, perhaps. On a site for nerds.
So why insult the guy? Is it some sort of affront for someone to post something that doesn't impress you?
I don't understand replies like this. Clearly a Minecraft server is a server. It's right there in the name! And people all have different server needs. Some need ftp (well, ssh), some need http, some need nfs or cifs or dns or teamspeak or...
So why belittle (or chide tease or whatever you are doing) someone for needing a different server service than you? It seems so unnecessarily negative!
"Understocked" as in "they didn't have many available" and "understocked" as in "they made a lot and still couldn't keep up with demand" are two very different things.
Not to mention that dozens of these are already on the market, some specific to the Android world, some rather generic.
And notice how no one uses them or even remembers them until Apple makes one.
It's not, like you seem to think, that Apple is some also-ran that is late to the party, but somehow gets all the credit. It's that Apple tends to put in the inordinate effort required to take a product that is simply neat tech and make it great.
That's why people get excited.
"Sony's making a watch that connects to your phone? That's cool. I probably won't get one (or even see on in person, ever), but it's cool."
"Apple's making one? I can hardly wait to see what they come up with!"
Do you get excited when MS comes up with a new online service? Probably not. What about Google? Yeah, me too. Excitement with Apple and hardware works much the same way.
Foxconn and Hon Hai are manufacturers (like the summary says). Apple (and other tech companies) work with them the same way you'd work with, say, a metal foundry somewhere to have them manufacture some parts you've designed. The main reason for this is you can't just invent something (especially technology), and just ask people to build it for you, they need to be able to.
So, this wrist-contoured glass. It sounds like Foxconn has been working on a new process for this, and have been looking for a way to get customers to pay them to build stuff for them using it. In this case, working with Apple to work it into a new watch.
The engineering for the watch itself will be all Apple. The engineering behind how to manufacture it will be a collaboration between Apple and Foxconn (or whoever), the same way Apple (and everyone else) has always done it. This is similar to how the processes for manufacturing the unibody aluminum enclosures and the iPhone 5 parts matching system was developed.
What you're thinking is a private label system, with some companies engage in (not Apple), where you might see the exact same product that gets labeled with different brands from different companies, similar to how some store brands (especially food and household supplies) are done.
Only if you treat a subjective word like "safe" as an objective absolute. Nothing, anywhere, is absolutely safe. Putting the burden on the user and giving them the impossible task of being "vigilant" is not helpful.
However, if you treat safety as the subjective word it is, you may realize that removing Flash and Java will increase your safety on the web by an enormous amount. Most people aren't technologically savvy enough to use vigilance as a safety mechanism. Just avoid Flash and Java, run antivirus software (if you're on Windows), keep up with software updates (on all platforms), and only enter in personal and financial info into sites you trust, and you're about as safe as can be reasonably expected.
Even with all that, there's still a risk, but it's a reasonable risk. The sort of risks we deal with in every other aspect of our lives without fear. Why should we treat the risk and safety aspects of computers any different?
This, among all the reasons people complain about it being programmed in Java, is the biggest complaint I have of Minecraft. It's the only reason I have Java installed at all.
Has YouTube yet fixed the inconsistency where only Flash is allowed to deliver videos that have ads of any sort?
Yes. Ad-enabled videos work on the iPad. Though you end up with the issue of not being able to play videos that disallow mobile device playback.
Both of these restrictions are enabled by the video uploader, and both cause (IMO) more harm than good. Any uploader that disables mobile viewing is an uploader I'm far less likely to subscribe to or otherwise watch future videos from.
Just get them an iPad then. Problem solved (and a few other problems get solved as well, such as the one where they are constantly asking for an iPad).
Slashdot Mirror
This is incorrect. What is actually stored on the Apple servers in Virginia is metadata. This includes device keys for devices authorized on the account, and rights certificates to RE- download already downloaded content from the content distribution network.
Please quit speaking about things for which you have no understanding.
I have:
Contacts, bookmarks, songs (my original files, not Apple's versions), iWork documents, photographs, and a multitude of other files and data, stored in Apple's iCloud servers. All of which I can freely download at any time.
You are correct that any purchases I've made, along with songs Apple has been able to match, are not stored individually, but even all of those files are re-downloadable by me.
And I'm positive that you are not aware of the implementation details for the iCloud.
You have no clue when I'm aware of. I do wish you'd quit yapping about things you don't understand. You are focussing on something that is completely meaningless to the discussion at hand: the behind the scenes implementation, while completely ignoring the real discussion: access to the data.
This! I've sold software on Google Checkout/Wallet since day one, and always expect/demand customers data. I would like to get data from iOS sales too! This developer needs to get a job.
If you want my data, you are free to ask me for it. I'm quite offended to hear you "expect/demand" it. Why? It belongs to me, and if you want it, you may ask. If it's for income, just ask me to pay what your product is worth instead of tricking me with a low price and making up the difference with the theft of my personal data.
This is exactly why I prefer Apple's iOS ecosystem. I know what I'm getting into, and am in full control over my personal data. I'm much more happy to part with a bit more money than with most of my privacy.
If this were the iOS or Windows Phone stores, then yes, that would be true. But with Google Play, the developer actually IS the merchant.
The problem here is that it's not presented that way. The Play Store appears, to the customer, exactly like any other storefront. If it's really more like a flea market with individual merchants all collected together under one roof, instead of like a retail store, then this is something that is not only obscured to the buyer (which is a gross deception), it's also not even obvious to the developers, who seem quite surprised to receive this amount of info.
The Play Store itself is only an intermediary. The system is setup like any other online store where there are "ordered" and goods are "shipped". Blame the fact that Google basically grafted the paid Android store onto a system that was meant for real-world goods.
I blame the fact on the combination of Google not caring one whit about end user privacy, coupled with Google's greatest strength: they do things in the quick-and-dirty somewhat Unix-style. Instead of creating a monolithic retail system, they slap together a few subsystems and call it a day.
This is a strength when it comes to flexibility and speed of execution, but is a weakness when it comes to making something consistent and reliable for the user. I prefer products with well thought out designs, where every detail is worked over and refined, but I do also understand the appeal of the infinitely flexible. I won't tell anyone which they should prefer, but I will say that end users are being presented something that doesn't match the reality of the system being presented.
Honestly though, this isn't news. Every Android developer has known this for YEARS. And this is no different than any other online store out there.
The developers have known this, but this has been unknown to the users. I had no clue this happened (but assumed Google was nowhere near as protective of my privacy as Apple, so have kept that in the back of my mind when using the Play Store).
However, I really would have greatly preferred to know this ahead of time. This isn't some design detail which needn't be exposed to the end user, but something that really needs to be openly and clearly made aware of. For me, this is a breach of trust, and while I won't eschew Google's services altogether because of it, I also won't quickly forget this breach either.
Coke doesn't get my name when I buy their products in a store or at a restaurant. Levi doesn't either. Nor does Adobe when I buy their software at Best Buy. Or Lenovo or Microsoft or Sony. Neither does Rovio when I buy their apps on the App Store.
The problem here is that Google really doesn't care at all about privacy. It's not part of their corporate culture, and it can't be, when their entire business model is centered around exploiting data, not protecting it. Primary to any Google service is Google's wholesale commercial access to every bit of data you provide. Privacy is then applied secondarily, usually in the sense of keeping the personal data within Google's proprietary control, and only releasing aggregated and somewhat anonymized data to third parties, but that's just an afterthought. It's window dressing to make the initial privacy violation more digestible. Which for most of us here, it is... up to a point.
There are many things to like about Google, and I'm sure many here will (quite hypocritically) give up privacy in order to keep using the things they do like. I have no problem with this tradeoff if made knowingly, though it is annoying to hear people harp on with Benjamin Franklin quotes, then sell him down the river as fits their fancies.
It's things like this which makes Apple's system so appealing for many. With Apple, you can trust that your privacy is an inherent part of the system. With Google, you privacy is inherently compromised from the get-go. Even MS is miles ahead of Google with regards to privacy, and MS has historically been one of the most cynically profit-driven companies to ever exist!
Anyway, to your point, the developers already have my money. That's all they deserve from the transaction. If they want my name, email address, and location, they can ask for it. And if I'm willing to grant it, they can have it. Otherwise, they'll just have to settle for my money, which should be more than sufficient. If it's not, they can raise their prices, as I'd much rather pay up front for the things I use, rather than be on the hook with hidden costs that, unlike my checkbook, are often out of my control.
Every document stored in iCloud (music, tv shows, movies, contacts, apps, books,pages documents, etc.) are downloadable. If you couldn't, it would make for a shitty cloud (you can upload all you want, but you can never access your files? How does that even make any sense).
You can also store all of Apple's iCloud documents in other services. Gmail contacts, Amazon Music Locker, Dropbox, etc. I'm not sure you are aware of how iCloud works from the user's point of view.
As for logins, that's not what is being discussed. No one makes a fuss that you can't log into your gmail account using your own server's PAM configuration, or on your NT domain. No one complains that you have to sign into Netflix to watch your Netflix content. You're right that Cromebooks require a (somewhat ironic) Google account, and that it's something to consider. But even that lets you use iCloud, Evernote, Dropbox, whatever. That's just for logging in to your computer and (of course) to get ever more people using Google services.
> Now it's true that you could argue that people who buy into these ecosystems know what they are getting into, but that's nonetheless 5 examples of devices specifically tied to back end cloud services, with the easy potential for more devices as other vendors attempt to get into the Android/iPhone/Nook/Kindle/ChromeBook space themselves.
Except that wasn't my question. Where is this a problem? How is your data locked away? Even with the Chromebook, if you decide to buy an iPad instead, it's simple enough to transfer all your data into iCloud, of if you prefer, just keep using all the Google apps as is.
I'm definitely not saying there aren't downsides, or things to consider, just that having your data locked away isn't one of them.
Please cite and example of a cloud service where this has become an actual problem.
I'm unaware of any cloud files storage service that locks you in such that you can't move to another. They all let you download your files (they'd be fairly useless if they didn't!).
Ah, the iOS attitude. It seems like a deal until you realize the difficulty and cost of leaving. *This* is why having an open platform matters.
What's the cost of leaving? You just download your files (if you haven't already done so) and move on.
That's *much* cheaper than the cost of doing it yourself if you don't have the spare hardware and have no clue or desire how to even get started, maintain, and secure it. That's why the "iOS attitude" is so popular.
That is the cloud you operate yourself. You have less control over anything else and there's no reason not to do this.
Except for price, convenience, time, maintenance, reliability, expertise...
For most people, "less control" is a worthwhile tradeoff.
By definition.
Absolutely! You will just learn different things.
Is that your metric for whether to put someone down or not? Whether they've learned something to your approval or not?
Strange!
The kid is playing Minecraft, and the dad is writing up articles comparing VPS's with recycled home servers. I don't think either is so strapped for time as yo seem to think. Which is curious, since you are reading and posting on Slashdot, so clearly even your time isn't as important as you seem to be chastising other people for!
It's called "hobbies" and "fun" and "curiosity", you know, nerd characteristics. Quit taking things so seriously!
If it is only for minecraft? If so, and you are trying to pinch pennies, have the kid stop playing minecraft and get a job.
Sounds like you've quite completely misunderstood the intention. The Minecraft server is the primary requirement, not optional. Saving money is secondary to it. And forced child labor doesn't appear to be an option at all (and a somewhat disturbing suggestion regardless of the rest).
There's value in the actual doing of those arithmetic functions, as well as knowing which ones to do, having hard numbers to put into them, sharing them for others to benefit from, and even simply thinking to do them in the first place.
I don't think it was meant to impress you with its brilliance, was meant to contribute greatly to society, or to help earn a PhD. It seems to me it was meant to answer a question, and by sharing, perhaps answer a question others might have. Not everyone (i.e., you), but some. Nerds, perhaps. On a site for nerds.
So why insult the guy? Is it some sort of affront for someone to post something that doesn't impress you?
I don't understand replies like this. Clearly a Minecraft server is a server. It's right there in the name! And people all have different server needs. Some need ftp (well, ssh), some need http, some need nfs or cifs or dns or teamspeak or...
So why belittle (or chide tease or whatever you are doing) someone for needing a different server service than you? It seems so unnecessarily negative!
"Understocked" as in "they didn't have many available" and "understocked" as in "they made a lot and still couldn't keep up with demand" are two very different things.
Not to mention that dozens of these are already on the market, some specific to the Android world, some rather generic.
And notice how no one uses them or even remembers them until Apple makes one.
It's not, like you seem to think, that Apple is some also-ran that is late to the party, but somehow gets all the credit. It's that Apple tends to put in the inordinate effort required to take a product that is simply neat tech and make it great.
That's why people get excited.
"Sony's making a watch that connects to your phone? That's cool. I probably won't get one (or even see on in person, ever), but it's cool."
"Apple's making one? I can hardly wait to see what they come up with!"
Do you get excited when MS comes up with a new online service? Probably not. What about Google? Yeah, me too. Excitement with Apple and hardware works much the same way.
Foxconn and Hon Hai are manufacturers (like the summary says). Apple (and other tech companies) work with them the same way you'd work with, say, a metal foundry somewhere to have them manufacture some parts you've designed. The main reason for this is you can't just invent something (especially technology), and just ask people to build it for you, they need to be able to.
So, this wrist-contoured glass. It sounds like Foxconn has been working on a new process for this, and have been looking for a way to get customers to pay them to build stuff for them using it. In this case, working with Apple to work it into a new watch.
The engineering for the watch itself will be all Apple. The engineering behind how to manufacture it will be a collaboration between Apple and Foxconn (or whoever), the same way Apple (and everyone else) has always done it. This is similar to how the processes for manufacturing the unibody aluminum enclosures and the iPhone 5 parts matching system was developed.
What you're thinking is a private label system, with some companies engage in (not Apple), where you might see the exact same product that gets labeled with different brands from different companies, similar to how some store brands (especially food and household supplies) are done.
You got your TL;DR wrong, it should have read: "TL;DR: This post is nothing more than an insult"
Why even post something like that?
That's dead enough for me.
Well, a "nice" tablet UI-based Reader app for PDFs.
Only if you treat a subjective word like "safe" as an objective absolute. Nothing, anywhere, is absolutely safe. Putting the burden on the user and giving them the impossible task of being "vigilant" is not helpful.
However, if you treat safety as the subjective word it is, you may realize that removing Flash and Java will increase your safety on the web by an enormous amount. Most people aren't technologically savvy enough to use vigilance as a safety mechanism. Just avoid Flash and Java, run antivirus software (if you're on Windows), keep up with software updates (on all platforms), and only enter in personal and financial info into sites you trust, and you're about as safe as can be reasonably expected.
Even with all that, there's still a risk, but it's a reasonable risk. The sort of risks we deal with in every other aspect of our lives without fear. Why should we treat the risk and safety aspects of computers any different?
This, among all the reasons people complain about it being programmed in Java, is the biggest complaint I have of Minecraft. It's the only reason I have Java installed at all.
Has YouTube yet fixed the inconsistency where only Flash is allowed to deliver videos that have ads of any sort?
Yes. Ad-enabled videos work on the iPad. Though you end up with the issue of not being able to play videos that disallow mobile device playback.
Both of these restrictions are enabled by the video uploader, and both cause (IMO) more harm than good. Any uploader that disables mobile viewing is an uploader I'm far less likely to subscribe to or otherwise watch future videos from.
Some videos played just fine but other videos played back at 1.5x speed while the audio was normal. Opted out of the trial after that.
Was the audio Yakkity Sax? Because I think I know what your problem was...
Just get them an iPad then. Problem solved (and a few other problems get solved as well, such as the one where they are constantly asking for an iPad).