Clearly you are correct. Well, except the 'bug up my ass' over 'all things Apple'.
I love how you immediately follow this up with:
In terms of hardware, I simply think that illustrating that Apple's crap is the same crap as everyone else's crap is, well, justice. They frequently deceive people and only rarely is it revealed. Now, when it comes to their 'store' and the implications of that monstrosity, that's another battle.
In other words, you have a bug up your ass. It doesn't matter whether you think your are justified or not, the fact is clear that you are compelled to talk shit about Apple. That's a bug, and it's up your ass.
But those are just coincidental evils. I have nothing against fruit-oriented companies, in general, Apple included.
Clearly not!
You know, placing "I'm not against Apple" on either end of a paragraph of things you have against Apple doesn't make that true.
You're labeling me a damned idiot, and even openly stated that you believe that I have a 'bug up my ass' about Apple. You said so a post or two over, remember?
I didn't call you a damned idiot, that was just an example (that's not to say I don't hold that view, I reserve the right to make that judgement). I did, however, say you have a bug up your ass.
Busted? I think so...
Busted for what? Calling it like I see it?
Did you even watch the video?
Yes, and it's not a refutation of the fact that every single radio device the size of a cell phone will have signal attenuation when a human hand covers the antenna. This is physics.
You're flaming me.
You're a fucking troll who's flaming people left and right. You deserve it (and I've been relatively mild until right now.
And honestly I think you should apologize, if not for the anti-social behavior then at least for not even watching the video you 'rebutted' so handily.
Feigned injury. You are a troll.
The video doesn't rebut anything. You can't rebut physics. If that video demonstrates what you seem to think it does, that youtuber ought to be in line for a Nobel prize.
How is that a reply? Every phone does this. A youtube video doesn't change physics.
And the Anandtech article gives actual numbers to verify what I've said.
As for ad hominem, you have no fucking clue what that means. It doesn't mean I said you don't know what you're talking about, it means I attacked you in lieu of attacking your argument. Ad hominem is something like, "my esteemed opponent is a Mormon, therefore you cannot believe his testimony as to whether I was at the brothel last Tuesday evening," not, "you're and damned idiot, and here's why..."
This is always the case due to simple psychology. 'Actual iPhone 4 owners' are looking for reasons to keep the device because of reinforcement dynamics. The same would apply for any decision. People always, always weight the facts in support of their positions greater than those opposed to it. Because we all want to be thought of as 'smart', don't we?
And don't think this doesn't apply in reverse. You clearly have a bug up your ass over all things Apple, and you're latching on to this issue in a form of confirmation bias to bash Apple.
It's not like somehow those that defend Apple are irrational morons and only the Apple bashers are level-headed rationalists.
Anand shows that the iphone 4 is SUBSTANTIALLY worse than the 3GS in terms of signal attenuation in four different situations (in one case, by as much as 18db !) This is contrary to Apple's claims that the revolutionary antenna design gives the iphone4 superior RF performance to previous generations.
But that's exactly what the Anand testing shows. The external antenna is superior. When you block it, it drops more than other phones, but even at lower signal strengths it holds onto calls other phones would drop. The bulk of the problem is that people are starting out with low signals, but being confused by the display which leads them to think they have a strong signal.
That's why reports of this issue vary so much. People who start out with good signals don't drop their calls. Those that start out with poor signals do. But both groups can start out with five bars giving the exact same initial appearance in two very different circumstances.
You clearly have no understanding of how radio works. Every phone does this. There's no way to make a phone that doesn't suffer from signal attenuation when you cover the antenna. Android, Blackberry, Nokia, etc., all suffer from this, because it's physically impossible for them not to.
What's happening here is that the iPhone would show 4 or 5 bars, then drop to 1 or 0 bars, when the actual signal loss wasn't that much, because it started out fairly low to begin with. This makes the attenuation look more severe than it really is.
But facts like this don't support slashdot's knee-jerk hatred of all things Apple these days.
I can tell you that your entire post is horseshit. How do I know? Actual testing with actual numbers provided by Anandtech. Specifically, this page.
The bars do not convey an accurate sense of the phone's ability to make a call/transfer data. What a lot of people are seeing is going from 4 or 5 bars to 1 or none, but the difference in signal quality isn't from "super awesome to poor" (as a 5 bar to 1 bar drop implies) it's really from "not so good to poor" (which would be more accurately conveyed by a 3 bar to 1 bar drop).
It seems that the problem is that holding the phone in a certain way short-circuits the antennae, effectively combining them into one longer antenna.
In the very post you just replied to, it's pointed out that this also happens on the iPhone 3GS with iOS 4. The iPhone 3GS doesn't have an external antenna to "short".
It's not a short, it's the attenuation of the signal by having your hand over the antenna. This happens on all phones. What remains to be seen is if the updates corrects this. If it corrects the older iPhones, but not iPhone 4, then it makes the "shorting antenna" scenario more likely, but as it stands, it's sufficiently explained by other factors (which you addressed in the rest of your post).
How a software update will fix an human-caused short circuit.
Because it's not a human-caused short circuit.
Hands attenuate the signal. This happens on every single cell phone. iOS 4 apparently doesn't handle this well, and instead of reacting in a way that maintains the connection, it drops it altogether. This is speculation, of course, but we should know the answers to all this soon enough.
No, it's bullshit when you state it as a reported fact, not a statistical estimate. Here is what you wrote:
And already after only a couple of days thousands of people have reported shattering theirs from drops as little as 12"
I don't mean you have to explicitly state that it's an estimate. Something like, "there will have been thousands of shattered screens in just a few days" or whatever, suffices to make the "statistics/estimate" defense reasonable. But "thousands have reported" is *not* a statistical estimate, it's 100% Grade A Bullshit.
It's entirely within reason that if 100 phones with broken glass (50 front, 50 back) were swapped in two days, there were at least an order of magnitude more owners who didn't manage to take it back to an Apple store that quickly.
So, you're basing your estimate on the fact that if 100 panels where shattered, therefore thousands where?
Sure, it's an estimate, but it certainly isn't bullshit.
It's a bullshit estimate. There's no way that >0.2% of iPhone 4's (1 million units, 2 thousand shatters (you said thousands, so I'm using the smallest number in your favor)) have had their glass panels shattered. Your estimate implies that in less than three years, every single iPhone sold today will have, statistically, suffered one shattered panel? That doesn't make any sense. In three years, most iPhones today will still be intact. Some will have suffered a shattered panel, and some will have suffered multiple (either both panels, or someone will have shattered one on their replacement). It's just not a reasonable claim that there will have been one million shattered panels in three years, out of the initial iPhone 4 sales.
the idea of "retinal display" is a meaningless metric, because no two eyes are alike
That doesn't make it meaningless. No two eyes are alike, but the color "red" still is meaningful, and HDTV is still meaningful, etc. Something doesn't have to be absolutely, unwaveringly universal to be meaningful.
The idea that "this is as high a resolution as you need because nobody can see any batter" is hogwash.
And no one ever say "nobody can see any better". What was claimed is that at about 300 dpi at about 12 inches, you start to have pixels smaller than most people can see. That's true, and the iPhone 4 display exceeds this metric. Just because some people may hold the iPhone close enough to see the pixels doesn't negate this, just like the fact that some people can't see movies in 3D doesn't negate the awesomeness of a movie like Avatar in 3D.
And even in absolutist terms, your point is flawed, since there is absolutely some DPI amount beyond which no human can discern the pixels at any distance.
Android outsold the iPhone[*] in the US for one quarter. Worldwide, the iPhone dominates Android, and even in the US, it's uncertain whether Android will see the same sales rate, but it very well could. I do have a suspicion, however, that iPhone will have a very good current quarter.
It's just one market for one quarter. It's definitely notable, but iPhone is still out ahead.
[*] It's also worth noting that this only counts iPhone, not all iOS devices, but it doesn't have any direct bearing on what I wrote or what you were responding to.
So, we're both annoyed with each other. No point in dwelling on that, but if I've offended you, cite some specific posts and if you want an apology or acknowledgement, etc., well, we'll see what the case is. I'd rather just drop it altogether and get to the actual topic at hand.
As for the actual topic, please ask specific questions. Not walls-of-text paragraphs with question after question and link after link. There's no way to reply to something like that without either ignoring huge parts of it, or creating a monster-size reply in turn. It's alright (and perfectly reasonable) to go on an explanation for a paragraph or two, but for the parts you specifically want me to reply to, a one liner, or a small list, is the way to go.
After all, I have to read your post in order to reply to it.
So, if you have some specific things you want me to address, ask them directly and reasonably succinctly, otherwise this is just a mess.
Kitkoan: I'm going to reply with a second, TL;DR. Feel free to ignore either this one or the other one.
Everyone else: If anyone else is still reading this, please skip this post and go to the second TL;DR one. I mean, if you want, read on, but it's going to be boring as hell.
So, here's the thing. This isn't going to work if you keep attacking me personally, so I'm skipping down to where you actually go after factual points (I did read it this time, but I'm not going to address it except to say you make a lot of claims against me without any citations, just, "you keep insulting me and I held my tongue" etc.).
Anyway, if you have any specific grievances, feel free to cite them. Otherwise, addressing nebulous accusations seems futile.
And I'll try to restate what I was trying to say last post: if you are interested in honest discussion, let's just drop all the "you're a dick", "no, you're a dick" back and forth.
For starters, you mentioned 'As for "controlling what the end user experiences". That's overstating things quite much.... with the fundamental exception that they want to exclude a set of very rational things. Primarily, buggy software, spyware, and ports which fail to make good use of the platform(which unless I'm mistaken your meaning the App store and the inability to install/modify the OS the your choosing)... it makes the product better' how so? How is the locked down nature of iPod/iPhone/iPad not 'controlling the end user experiences? How does this make a 'product better'?
I can't go through a barrage of questions (logistically speaking). Three questions means three quotes and three answers, it gets tedious quickly.
Anyway, I'll do a list here:
1. (makes it better, how?) It makes it better by removing a lot of responsibility on the part of the user. 2. (how is the app store lock not "controlling the user") It doesn't control the user. It controls one aspect of the device. I suspect we are never going to agree on this, and that's fine. But my point is that "control" isn't binary. If any minuscule amount of control is the same as total control, then yes, Apple controls the user. But if there's a difference, then what I'm saying is that the amount of control is insufficient to trigger a judgement of "Apple is controlling you". The reason I say we will probably not agree here is because you appear to be the type of person who finds pretty much any control to be offensive. While you don't have to agree with me, you should at least agree that my judgement is honest. 3. (how does this make it better? (ok, looks like just two questions) I'll expand on my first answer. It makes the product better for most people. If you are technically competent (most people aren't), enjoy tinkering (most people don't) and like the idea of having a phone that allows tinkering and pushing the boundaries of what is possible, then the iPhone is not for you. For that type of person (I'm assuming you are that type), it doesn't make the iPhone better. But for people for which those things do not apply? The iPhone is better for them.
So when I say it makes the iPhone better, I don't mean better for everyone. Also, it's important to understand that "better" is opinion. When you claim I'm not honest or am making things up, or whatever, you can't use opinion as though it were fact. What is important here is whether my opinion is honest (it is) and whether it's based on some form of rational thought process (it is). Even if you disagree with my opinion, you cannot dismiss it as lies or fanboyism or something.
As I mentioned (with links re-inserted) 'As for Mac and control, it's always been about control. Control over hardware and software. This is why its products like the iPod/iTouch/iPhone are encrypted, for control. People found they could start to alter the software on these devices like either use different software to load music on to these devices (like Amarok could before they
You were so quick to try to label the first person a troll, yet panic when I called you one. Pot meet kettle.
I didn't call him a troll, re-read my post. In all my time here on slashdot, I've only ever called someone a troll a handful of times.
And yes, I've read your posts, and I know you read mine. Your post showed me that.
To be honest, I recognize your name, but I don't particularly recognize you specifically (and there are folks on both sides who I recognize, plenty more that I don't).
I asked for you to give a legit citation, something you can't do because you know you've made up your posts, all of your posts.
This is just a load of shit. I didn't respond because I didn't read your post, and I don't intend to go back and do so. The thing is, even though this is the internet and all, you still have to treat people with respect if you want to receive respect in return. You'll be hard pressed to cite an example of me totally shitting all over someone who's being respectful.
Not a single thing I've posted is "made up". Some of it is opinion, of course. But any facts are things I know to be true. I might be wrong, but I don't do what you're suggesting.
Your claiming that I have a differing opinion. Showing facts that counter your say-so isn't a differing opinion. Its calling your bluff. And again, I'm calling your bluff. Prove me wrong.
I tell you what. Give me a specific thing you want me to either back up or refute or whatever. Do it without being an ass, and I'll respond (the only exceptions, aside from being an ass, is if the post is from long ago, or there are tons of replies and going through them is a hassle, it would be nice if slashdot had some way of marking replies as viewed or not to be easily sorted).
But, anyway, if you want to have a civil discussion, feel free to completely ignore all the stuff about how I'm not a troll or am a troll, or how you're being an ass or not an ass, etc. Silence will not count against you. Just throw some questions or whatever you think is an honest critique, and see how it goes.
And I debated whether to add this last part here or not, but I will because I think it may help out. Sometimes, hell, a *lot* of times, I'll erase part of a post where I insult someone. Not necessarily because I don't think they deserve it, or that they aren't guilty of being a complete idiot or whatever, but because it just does no good. You clearly think I'm a troll, or being an ass or an idiot or whatever. But really, do you think insulting me is going to get me to respond in a good way? How would it make you respond? That's why I didn't read the rest of that post of yours above.
Anyway, I realize I'm the guy you're pissed off at, so any advice will sound like I'm being condescending or whatever. Reply in the fashion you wish, but before hitting "Submit", take a second to think about what you are looking to get out of your contributions here on slashdot.
Didn't expect you to read it, since it wasn't blind pro-apple praise to be honest
I doubt that. You wrote it for me to read. Your one-line quip response here, though, is just trolling, pure and simple. Be honest and admit it.
I don't care if you have a differing opinion, I don't even care if you hate Apple with a passion, I'll read your replies if you aren't just being an asshole. Since you seem so familiar with my posts, you must be aware of that.
But no, the thing that makes me a troll in your eyes is that I say things positive about Apple, so you react like this is supposed to be a flame war. I really, honestly don't care if you agree with me or not, if you're here for an honest conversation, but life's too damned short to spend it throwing insults, not honest opinions, back and forth.
If the idea is to make the iPhone more appealing Apple would allow anyone to install any software on iPhones. One reason I would not buy an iPad, even if I had a billion dollars, is because Apple restricts the software I install on it to only the software Apple offers in it's app store.
The set of people for whom this is true is exceptionally small. On the other hand, having a single source for apps, with an absolutely simple method for buying, installing and deleting apps appeals to almost everyone.
So no, allowing installation from anywhere does not increase the net appeal of the iPhone. It definitely would increase the appeal to some people (like yourself), but not overall.
Now if instead Apple had released a tablet like the Modbook Pro I'd be in line to get one.
And Apple would not have sold 3 million of them in the past 80 days.
But Apple does want to control its users other wise it would allow users to install software other than what the app store offers. Apple would not be blocking Adobe from offering Flash to users.
The problem with this notion that "Apple wants to control its users" is that there's absolutely no rational explanation for this. To what ends is this control aimed? Does Steve Jobs just want to poke his head into your life? It makes no sense. It doesn't even make any financial sense, which would at least be rational (but offensive).
The only explanation that makes any sense, the only explanation that fits with what Apple and Jobs have said in public, and the only explanation that fits with the actions Apple has taken, is that the control they do exert (and it's not that much) is aimed towards making the iPhone (and iPad, etc.) a better product. Apple's success with the average person suggests that this approach is working well for them. Just because there are some people who prefer absolute control does not negate the effectiveness of this approach with the overwhelming majority of people for whom software "freedom" is neither a moral imperative, nor a practical requisite.
The iPad isn't for you. That's absolutely fine, don't take any of the above as meant to convince you otherwise. The only thing this is about is to point out why Apple does what they do, not to convince you that you have to like it.
You feel that? Thats called irony. When the biggest Mac troll on slashdot tries to call someone a troll for bullshit. Now the next time you want to call someone a troll you need to take a good, long look in the mirror first.
Just out of curiosity, do you honestly expect me to read the rest of your post, after starting out like this?
Calling people who disagree with you "fanboys" (or "freetards" or using words like "Windoze" and "Micro$oft", you get the idea) is trollish bullshit. Simply having an opinion that is not anti-Apple is not bullshit, nor is it trollish.
Anyway, I hope you didn't put too much effort into the rest of your post, since you've given me no reason to continue reading it. Quite the contrary, in fact.
Can you point to any actual reason to worry about your bank information being vulnerable from an iPhone?
You need help to see the problem with your e-banking platform being compromised? You dont see a problem with handling your credit-card data using a computing device that potentially has just about anyone listening-in in the background?
Where did I say I wouldn't have a problem with my banking info being compromised? I asked for a citation of this actually happening on the iPhone due to a security flaw.
Now obviously the iphone isnt that leaky, but if some of these vulnerabilities marked "arbitrary code execution" could lead to key-logging software being secretely installed, that would be a rather big issue, especially since lots of people still see the iphone as a phone (an appliance), rather then a computer, with all the needed security worries
Except that no such exploit exists. There have been "arbitrary code execution" flaws in parts of Mac OS X since the beginning, and as far as I am aware, not a single exploit, not even a proof-of-concept (which is somewhat surprising).
The problem is that taking advantage of possible "arbitrary code execution" flaws in Mac OS X is difficult. Far more difficult than on Windows pre-Vista and all but the most hardened Linuxes. Windows Vista and forward, and hardened Linuxes like SELinux have active countermeasures which Mac OS X doesn't have (or have done as well), but just by the very nature of the OS, it's hard to create an exploit for this, and once you do, it's specific to a particular flaw and isn't all that reusable.
And on iOS it's even more difficult.
Which is why I asked for actual evidence for an actual reason to be concerned. I don't mean "concerned enough to fix the flaws", that's obvious. But "concerned that there are actual exploits out there".
Maybe there are. It's an honest question, and if there are exploits, or even proofs-of-concept that lead to the realistic concern that there may be unknown exploits in the wild, then I really want to know, because I use my iPad, and very much need to know if I should be more concerned than I currently am. But knowing what I know, I'm not presently concerned.
They have said this. Not in some press release or an interview from Jobs, but in other adverts like radio. They have a Mac commercial airing right now that says Macs are virus-free. If I can get a recording of it I'll host it and link it.
Apple does not have radio advertisements. Definitely not in the US, perhaps in another locale (although I wouldn't expect it).
But by all means, snag a recording and put it up somewhere.
If you buy a Sony TV, does Sony decide who your PayTV provider is and what channels you are permitted to subscibe to? Apple does this on the Iphone.
PS3.
Does your local grocer prevent you from buying groceries from a different grocer? Apple does this on the Iphone.
The grocer decides what they will offer for sale.
Does Microsoft prevent you from installing software from non-MS approved sources on Windows? Apple does this on the Iphone.
Xbox 360.
Just because Sony has TVs that aren't tied to their services, and MS doesn't lock down Windows like they do the Xbox, that doesn't mean they don't also do that on their other products. Otherwise, I could just as easily respond with, "Does Apple prevent you from installing software from non-Apple approved sources on Mac OS X? MS does this on the xbox!"
As for the grocer, just like with the iPhone, if you don't want the products they offer, you go somewhere else. I'm unaware of anyone who is required to buy an iPhone.
Apple does not control one aspect of the Iphone, Apple controls all aspects of the Iphone. Your rant makes no sense.
Bullshit. They control the store. The claim that Apple "controls all aspects of the Iphone [sic]" makes the term "control" meaningless. If Apple controls everything about the iPhone (for example, they control what music I can listen to? What web pages I can visit?), then so does MS with Windows.
The only thing they control, actually go out of their way to exert control over, is the products they carry in their store. Anything else they control is just normal, like whether it will ship with support for Flash, or whether it's locked to a specific carrier.
1. But this doesnt tell you who Apple have given the data to.
YES IT DOES. The app is listed right there in the preferences. It does it right there when it asks. You're right that the little arrow doesn't say which app is using it, and if you've used a bunch of different location-aware apps and are using a handful at the moment, you may not know for sure which one is accessing your location, but that's not really a problem. If it's a problem for you, just reset location permissions and see which app asks.
2. Many programs will refuse to work if not given permission.
So what? Don't run the app then. This isn't something Apple is doing, it's the app developer. And perhaps you have some examples in mind? Because the only apps that I'm aware of that won't work without your location are those that either logically, or legally, need it. Specifically, mapping apps (and even those will run, they just won't be able to show you where you are) and apps where TV content is streamed (thus requiring you to be in a specific geographic region).
3. Apple have the ability to override your settings.
They don't. I mean, sure, because they wrote the OS, they can write it to override your settings, but there's absolutely no indication whatsoever that they've done so, except for any legal requirements pertaining to E911 regulations (which isn't Apple-specific, all handsets must follow these regulations, and I don't think they actually have to give exact GPS coordinates, just cell-tower info).
It looks to me like they are actually respecting our privacy,
By selling your data to third parties. What colour is the sky in your world?
Apple wants to kill the Mac OS desktop. Thus far I've been called a Troll, Naive and Insane. Now I am vindicated as developers have said the same thing.
Apple doesn't want to kill the desktop, the desktop will be around for quite some time, and they want to be there until the end.
Apple isn't going to kill the Imac and Macbook lines, they will simply replace the current NEXT based OS with the future versions of IOS and naturally more complex systems are more prone to unexpected issues.
iOS is Nextstep, just with (mainly) UIKit replacing AppKit (there are more differences between Mac OS X and iOS, but this is main difference in terms of its relation to Nextstep). As for replacing Mac OS X with iOS, this doesn't make any sense. iOS is designed for small multitouch screens. This notion of iOS on the desktop is just as misguided as the idea of an iPad running Mac OS X. It can be done, but it would make the product worse.
Having two disparate OS lines is detrimental to the long term success of this goal [homogeneity].
Perhaps, but the gain in homogeneity would not offset the loss in quality of the Mac platform.
Control. Fanboys may defend Apple's control for various reasons, mostly using cognitive dissonance
FYI, when you get called a troll, it's for bullshit like this. Calling those who disagree with you "fanboys" makes you a troll, de facto. You may not realize it, leaving you to wonder "what the hell did I say that makes me a troll?" leading you to a conclusion that it must be just a bunch of "fanboys" who just don't want to hear the truth (hence your claim of cognitive dissonance), reinforcing your notion that we're just "fanboys", and therefore our arguments are dismissed out of hand.
Anyway, my point being, if you don't want to be seen as a troll, drop that word from your vocabulary completely, even when you think that there's a situation where it incontrovertibly applies.
They want to stop the hackintosh, they want to prevent more clones and they want to control what the end users experiences.
And this is why you are wrong, whether you get called troll or not. The above, which is pretty much the extent of their "control" is fairly limited, and very weak grounds upon which to base any sort of grand notion that Apple wants to increase control over their users.
The "control" over the hackintosh is obviously very limited, and not the sort of control which leads to any sort of slippery slope issues. They want you to buy a Mac if you want to run Mac OS X. The Mac and their OS are a whole. You may not like that that's how they see it, and that that's how they go about it, but some sort of overarching "control" it is not.
As for "controlling what the end user experiences". That's overstating things quite much. They don't want to control what the user experiences, with the fundamental exception that they want to exclude a set of very rational things. Primarily, buggy software, spyware, and ports which fail to make good use of the platform. They don't want control over my experience other than to help see to it that I don't have to deal with such crap. And when us "fanboys" say (as you said in your post) "it's for your own good and other such excuses", what we're saying is that "it makes the product better". That's why we willingly choose Apple products, so we don't have to deal with a bunch of crap. It's also a huge part of why Apple products do so well even when surrounded by competition whose primary advantage is less "control".
This wont happen overnight, not even the RDF turned to eleven could pull that one off. It will happen over time in baby steps and be hailed by the fanboys.
It (although not the "it" you've been going on about) will be hailed because it will make our lives better. The "it" won't be locking down the Mac, or replacing M
Slashdot Mirror
Clearly you are correct. Well, except the 'bug up my ass' over 'all things Apple'.
I love how you immediately follow this up with:
In terms of hardware, I simply think that illustrating that Apple's crap is the same crap as everyone else's crap is, well, justice. They frequently deceive people and only rarely is it revealed. Now, when it comes to their 'store' and the implications of that monstrosity, that's another battle.
In other words, you have a bug up your ass. It doesn't matter whether you think your are justified or not, the fact is clear that you are compelled to talk shit about Apple. That's a bug, and it's up your ass.
But those are just coincidental evils. I have nothing against fruit-oriented companies, in general, Apple included.
Clearly not!
You know, placing "I'm not against Apple" on either end of a paragraph of things you have against Apple doesn't make that true.
You're labeling me a damned idiot, and even openly stated that you believe that I have a 'bug up my ass' about Apple. You said so a post or two over, remember?
I didn't call you a damned idiot, that was just an example (that's not to say I don't hold that view, I reserve the right to make that judgement). I did, however, say you have a bug up your ass.
Busted? I think so...
Busted for what? Calling it like I see it?
Did you even watch the video?
Yes, and it's not a refutation of the fact that every single radio device the size of a cell phone will have signal attenuation when a human hand covers the antenna. This is physics.
You're flaming me.
You're a fucking troll who's flaming people left and right. You deserve it (and I've been relatively mild until right now.
And honestly I think you should apologize, if not for the anti-social behavior then at least for not even watching the video you 'rebutted' so handily.
Feigned injury. You are a troll.
The video doesn't rebut anything. You can't rebut physics. If that video demonstrates what you seem to think it does, that youtuber ought to be in line for a Nobel prize.
How is that a reply? Every phone does this. A youtube video doesn't change physics.
And the Anandtech article gives actual numbers to verify what I've said.
As for ad hominem, you have no fucking clue what that means. It doesn't mean I said you don't know what you're talking about, it means I attacked you in lieu of attacking your argument. Ad hominem is something like, "my esteemed opponent is a Mormon, therefore you cannot believe his testimony as to whether I was at the brothel last Tuesday evening," not, "you're and damned idiot, and here's why..."
This is always the case due to simple psychology. 'Actual iPhone 4 owners' are looking for reasons to keep the device because of reinforcement dynamics. The same would apply for any decision. People always, always weight the facts in support of their positions greater than those opposed to it. Because we all want to be thought of as 'smart', don't we?
And don't think this doesn't apply in reverse. You clearly have a bug up your ass over all things Apple, and you're latching on to this issue in a form of confirmation bias to bash Apple.
It's not like somehow those that defend Apple are irrational morons and only the Apple bashers are level-headed rationalists.
Anand shows that the iphone 4 is SUBSTANTIALLY worse than the 3GS in terms of signal attenuation in four different situations (in one case, by as much as 18db !) This is contrary to Apple's claims that the revolutionary antenna design gives the iphone4 superior RF performance to previous generations.
But that's exactly what the Anand testing shows. The external antenna is superior. When you block it, it drops more than other phones, but even at lower signal strengths it holds onto calls other phones would drop. The bulk of the problem is that people are starting out with low signals, but being confused by the display which leads them to think they have a strong signal.
That's why reports of this issue vary so much. People who start out with good signals don't drop their calls. Those that start out with poor signals do. But both groups can start out with five bars giving the exact same initial appearance in two very different circumstances.
You clearly have no understanding of how radio works. Every phone does this. There's no way to make a phone that doesn't suffer from signal attenuation when you cover the antenna. Android, Blackberry, Nokia, etc., all suffer from this, because it's physically impossible for them not to.
What's happening here is that the iPhone would show 4 or 5 bars, then drop to 1 or 0 bars, when the actual signal loss wasn't that much, because it started out fairly low to begin with. This makes the attenuation look more severe than it really is.
But facts like this don't support slashdot's knee-jerk hatred of all things Apple these days.
I can tell you that your entire post is horseshit. How do I know? Actual testing with actual numbers provided by Anandtech. Specifically, this page.
The bars do not convey an accurate sense of the phone's ability to make a call/transfer data. What a lot of people are seeing is going from 4 or 5 bars to 1 or none, but the difference in signal quality isn't from "super awesome to poor" (as a 5 bar to 1 bar drop implies) it's really from "not so good to poor" (which would be more accurately conveyed by a 3 bar to 1 bar drop).
It seems that the problem is that holding the phone in a certain way short-circuits the antennae, effectively combining them into one longer antenna.
In the very post you just replied to, it's pointed out that this also happens on the iPhone 3GS with iOS 4. The iPhone 3GS doesn't have an external antenna to "short".
It's not a short, it's the attenuation of the signal by having your hand over the antenna. This happens on all phones. What remains to be seen is if the updates corrects this. If it corrects the older iPhones, but not iPhone 4, then it makes the "shorting antenna" scenario more likely, but as it stands, it's sufficiently explained by other factors (which you addressed in the rest of your post).
No, it IS a short circuit*.
...
* Ok, I don't think it's really a short.
Is this one of those riddles where you have to figure out which villager is the one who lies every time and which one always tells the truth?
How a software update will fix an human-caused short circuit.
Because it's not a human-caused short circuit.
Hands attenuate the signal. This happens on every single cell phone. iOS 4 apparently doesn't handle this well, and instead of reacting in a way that maintains the connection, it drops it altogether. This is speculation, of course, but we should know the answers to all this soon enough.
It's not bullshit, it's statistics.
No, it's bullshit when you state it as a reported fact, not a statistical estimate. Here is what you wrote:
And already after only a couple of days thousands of people have reported shattering theirs from drops as little as 12"
I don't mean you have to explicitly state that it's an estimate. Something like, "there will have been thousands of shattered screens in just a few days" or whatever, suffices to make the "statistics/estimate" defense reasonable. But "thousands have reported" is *not* a statistical estimate, it's 100% Grade A Bullshit.
It's entirely within reason that if 100 phones with broken glass (50 front, 50 back) were swapped in two days, there were at least an order of magnitude more owners who didn't manage to take it back to an Apple store that quickly.
So, you're basing your estimate on the fact that if 100 panels where shattered, therefore thousands where?
Sure, it's an estimate, but it certainly isn't bullshit.
It's a bullshit estimate. There's no way that >0.2% of iPhone 4's (1 million units, 2 thousand shatters (you said thousands, so I'm using the smallest number in your favor)) have had their glass panels shattered. Your estimate implies that in less than three years, every single iPhone sold today will have, statistically, suffered one shattered panel? That doesn't make any sense. In three years, most iPhones today will still be intact. Some will have suffered a shattered panel, and some will have suffered multiple (either both panels, or someone will have shattered one on their replacement). It's just not a reasonable claim that there will have been one million shattered panels in three years, out of the initial iPhone 4 sales.
the idea of "retinal display" is a meaningless metric, because no two eyes are alike
That doesn't make it meaningless. No two eyes are alike, but the color "red" still is meaningful, and HDTV is still meaningful, etc. Something doesn't have to be absolutely, unwaveringly universal to be meaningful.
The idea that "this is as high a resolution as you need because nobody can see any batter" is hogwash.
And no one ever say "nobody can see any better". What was claimed is that at about 300 dpi at about 12 inches, you start to have pixels smaller than most people can see. That's true, and the iPhone 4 display exceeds this metric. Just because some people may hold the iPhone close enough to see the pixels doesn't negate this, just like the fact that some people can't see movies in 3D doesn't negate the awesomeness of a movie like Avatar in 3D.
And even in absolutist terms, your point is flawed, since there is absolutely some DPI amount beyond which no human can discern the pixels at any distance.
And already after only a couple of days thousands of people have reported shattering theirs from drops as little as 12"
The rest of your post is fairly informative, but this is pure bullshit. There's no way thousands of iPhone 4 screens have shattered.
Android outsold the iPhone[*] in the US for one quarter. Worldwide, the iPhone dominates Android, and even in the US, it's uncertain whether Android will see the same sales rate, but it very well could. I do have a suspicion, however, that iPhone will have a very good current quarter.
It's just one market for one quarter. It's definitely notable, but iPhone is still out ahead.
[*] It's also worth noting that this only counts iPhone, not all iOS devices, but it doesn't have any direct bearing on what I wrote or what you were responding to.
So, we're both annoyed with each other. No point in dwelling on that, but if I've offended you, cite some specific posts and if you want an apology or acknowledgement, etc., well, we'll see what the case is. I'd rather just drop it altogether and get to the actual topic at hand.
As for the actual topic, please ask specific questions. Not walls-of-text paragraphs with question after question and link after link. There's no way to reply to something like that without either ignoring huge parts of it, or creating a monster-size reply in turn. It's alright (and perfectly reasonable) to go on an explanation for a paragraph or two, but for the parts you specifically want me to reply to, a one liner, or a small list, is the way to go.
After all, I have to read your post in order to reply to it.
So, if you have some specific things you want me to address, ask them directly and reasonably succinctly, otherwise this is just a mess.
Kitkoan: I'm going to reply with a second, TL;DR. Feel free to ignore either this one or the other one.
Everyone else: If anyone else is still reading this, please skip this post and go to the second TL;DR one. I mean, if you want, read on, but it's going to be boring as hell.
So, here's the thing. This isn't going to work if you keep attacking me personally, so I'm skipping down to where you actually go after factual points (I did read it this time, but I'm not going to address it except to say you make a lot of claims against me without any citations, just, "you keep insulting me and I held my tongue" etc.).
Anyway, if you have any specific grievances, feel free to cite them. Otherwise, addressing nebulous accusations seems futile.
And I'll try to restate what I was trying to say last post: if you are interested in honest discussion, let's just drop all the "you're a dick", "no, you're a dick" back and forth.
For starters, you mentioned 'As for "controlling what the end user experiences". That's overstating things quite much.... with the fundamental exception that they want to exclude a set of very rational things. Primarily, buggy software, spyware, and ports which fail to make good use of the platform(which unless I'm mistaken your meaning the App store and the inability to install/modify the OS the your choosing)... it makes the product better' how so? How is the locked down nature of iPod/iPhone/iPad not 'controlling the end user experiences? How does this make a 'product better'?
I can't go through a barrage of questions (logistically speaking). Three questions means three quotes and three answers, it gets tedious quickly.
Anyway, I'll do a list here:
1. (makes it better, how?) It makes it better by removing a lot of responsibility on the part of the user.
2. (how is the app store lock not "controlling the user") It doesn't control the user. It controls one aspect of the device. I suspect we are never going to agree on this, and that's fine. But my point is that "control" isn't binary. If any minuscule amount of control is the same as total control, then yes, Apple controls the user. But if there's a difference, then what I'm saying is that the amount of control is insufficient to trigger a judgement of "Apple is controlling you". The reason I say we will probably not agree here is because you appear to be the type of person who finds pretty much any control to be offensive. While you don't have to agree with me, you should at least agree that my judgement is honest.
3. (how does this make it better? (ok, looks like just two questions) I'll expand on my first answer. It makes the product better for most people. If you are technically competent (most people aren't), enjoy tinkering (most people don't) and like the idea of having a phone that allows tinkering and pushing the boundaries of what is possible, then the iPhone is not for you. For that type of person (I'm assuming you are that type), it doesn't make the iPhone better. But for people for which those things do not apply? The iPhone is better for them.
So when I say it makes the iPhone better, I don't mean better for everyone. Also, it's important to understand that "better" is opinion. When you claim I'm not honest or am making things up, or whatever, you can't use opinion as though it were fact. What is important here is whether my opinion is honest (it is) and whether it's based on some form of rational thought process (it is). Even if you disagree with my opinion, you cannot dismiss it as lies or fanboyism or something.
As I mentioned (with links re-inserted) 'As for Mac and control, it's always been about control. Control over hardware and software. This is why its products like the iPod/iTouch/iPhone are encrypted, for control. People found they could start to alter the software on these devices like either use different software to load music on to these devices (like Amarok could before they
You were so quick to try to label the first person a troll, yet panic when I called you one. Pot meet kettle.
I didn't call him a troll, re-read my post. In all my time here on slashdot, I've only ever called someone a troll a handful of times.
And yes, I've read your posts, and I know you read mine. Your post showed me that.
To be honest, I recognize your name, but I don't particularly recognize you specifically (and there are folks on both sides who I recognize, plenty more that I don't).
I asked for you to give a legit citation, something you can't do because you know you've made up your posts, all of your posts.
This is just a load of shit. I didn't respond because I didn't read your post, and I don't intend to go back and do so. The thing is, even though this is the internet and all, you still have to treat people with respect if you want to receive respect in return. You'll be hard pressed to cite an example of me totally shitting all over someone who's being respectful.
Not a single thing I've posted is "made up". Some of it is opinion, of course. But any facts are things I know to be true. I might be wrong, but I don't do what you're suggesting.
Your claiming that I have a differing opinion. Showing facts that counter your say-so isn't a differing opinion. Its calling your bluff. And again, I'm calling your bluff. Prove me wrong.
I tell you what. Give me a specific thing you want me to either back up or refute or whatever. Do it without being an ass, and I'll respond (the only exceptions, aside from being an ass, is if the post is from long ago, or there are tons of replies and going through them is a hassle, it would be nice if slashdot had some way of marking replies as viewed or not to be easily sorted).
But, anyway, if you want to have a civil discussion, feel free to completely ignore all the stuff about how I'm not a troll or am a troll, or how you're being an ass or not an ass, etc. Silence will not count against you. Just throw some questions or whatever you think is an honest critique, and see how it goes.
And I debated whether to add this last part here or not, but I will because I think it may help out. Sometimes, hell, a *lot* of times, I'll erase part of a post where I insult someone. Not necessarily because I don't think they deserve it, or that they aren't guilty of being a complete idiot or whatever, but because it just does no good. You clearly think I'm a troll, or being an ass or an idiot or whatever. But really, do you think insulting me is going to get me to respond in a good way? How would it make you respond? That's why I didn't read the rest of that post of yours above.
Anyway, I realize I'm the guy you're pissed off at, so any advice will sound like I'm being condescending or whatever. Reply in the fashion you wish, but before hitting "Submit", take a second to think about what you are looking to get out of your contributions here on slashdot.
Didn't expect you to read it, since it wasn't blind pro-apple praise to be honest
I doubt that. You wrote it for me to read. Your one-line quip response here, though, is just trolling, pure and simple. Be honest and admit it.
I don't care if you have a differing opinion, I don't even care if you hate Apple with a passion, I'll read your replies if you aren't just being an asshole. Since you seem so familiar with my posts, you must be aware of that.
But no, the thing that makes me a troll in your eyes is that I say things positive about Apple, so you react like this is supposed to be a flame war. I really, honestly don't care if you agree with me or not, if you're here for an honest conversation, but life's too damned short to spend it throwing insults, not honest opinions, back and forth.
If the idea is to make the iPhone more appealing Apple would allow anyone to install any software on iPhones. One reason I would not buy an iPad, even if I had a billion dollars, is because Apple restricts the software I install on it to only the software Apple offers in it's app store.
The set of people for whom this is true is exceptionally small. On the other hand, having a single source for apps, with an absolutely simple method for buying, installing and deleting apps appeals to almost everyone.
So no, allowing installation from anywhere does not increase the net appeal of the iPhone. It definitely would increase the appeal to some people (like yourself), but not overall.
Now if instead Apple had released a tablet like the Modbook Pro I'd be in line to get one.
And Apple would not have sold 3 million of them in the past 80 days.
But Apple does want to control its users other wise it would allow users to install software other than what the app store offers. Apple would not be blocking Adobe from offering Flash to users.
The problem with this notion that "Apple wants to control its users" is that there's absolutely no rational explanation for this. To what ends is this control aimed? Does Steve Jobs just want to poke his head into your life? It makes no sense. It doesn't even make any financial sense, which would at least be rational (but offensive).
The only explanation that makes any sense, the only explanation that fits with what Apple and Jobs have said in public, and the only explanation that fits with the actions Apple has taken, is that the control they do exert (and it's not that much) is aimed towards making the iPhone (and iPad, etc.) a better product. Apple's success with the average person suggests that this approach is working well for them. Just because there are some people who prefer absolute control does not negate the effectiveness of this approach with the overwhelming majority of people for whom software "freedom" is neither a moral imperative, nor a practical requisite.
The iPad isn't for you. That's absolutely fine, don't take any of the above as meant to convince you otherwise. The only thing this is about is to point out why Apple does what they do, not to convince you that you have to like it.
You feel that? Thats called irony. When the biggest Mac troll on slashdot tries to call someone a troll for bullshit. Now the next time you want to call someone a troll you need to take a good, long look in the mirror first.
Just out of curiosity, do you honestly expect me to read the rest of your post, after starting out like this?
Calling people who disagree with you "fanboys" (or "freetards" or using words like "Windoze" and "Micro$oft", you get the idea) is trollish bullshit. Simply having an opinion that is not anti-Apple is not bullshit, nor is it trollish.
Anyway, I hope you didn't put too much effort into the rest of your post, since you've given me no reason to continue reading it. Quite the contrary, in fact.
I think we just found the real reason Apple don't want iPhone to multitask
Non sequitur.
Can you point to any actual reason to worry about your bank information being vulnerable from an iPhone?
You need help to see the problem with your e-banking platform being compromised? You dont see a problem with handling your credit-card data using a computing device that potentially has just about anyone listening-in in the background?
Where did I say I wouldn't have a problem with my banking info being compromised? I asked for a citation of this actually happening on the iPhone due to a security flaw.
Now obviously the iphone isnt that leaky, but if some of these vulnerabilities marked "arbitrary code execution" could lead to key-logging software being secretely installed, that would be a rather big issue, especially since lots of people still see the iphone as a phone (an appliance), rather then a computer, with all the needed security worries
Except that no such exploit exists. There have been "arbitrary code execution" flaws in parts of Mac OS X since the beginning, and as far as I am aware, not a single exploit, not even a proof-of-concept (which is somewhat surprising).
The problem is that taking advantage of possible "arbitrary code execution" flaws in Mac OS X is difficult. Far more difficult than on Windows pre-Vista and all but the most hardened Linuxes. Windows Vista and forward, and hardened Linuxes like SELinux have active countermeasures which Mac OS X doesn't have (or have done as well), but just by the very nature of the OS, it's hard to create an exploit for this, and once you do, it's specific to a particular flaw and isn't all that reusable.
And on iOS it's even more difficult.
Which is why I asked for actual evidence for an actual reason to be concerned. I don't mean "concerned enough to fix the flaws", that's obvious. But "concerned that there are actual exploits out there".
Maybe there are. It's an honest question, and if there are exploits, or even proofs-of-concept that lead to the realistic concern that there may be unknown exploits in the wild, then I really want to know, because I use my iPad, and very much need to know if I should be more concerned than I currently am. But knowing what I know, I'm not presently concerned.
They have said this. Not in some press release or an interview from Jobs, but in other adverts like radio. They have a Mac commercial airing right now that says Macs are virus-free. If I can get a recording of it I'll host it and link it.
Apple does not have radio advertisements. Definitely not in the US, perhaps in another locale (although I wouldn't expect it).
But by all means, snag a recording and put it up somewhere.
If you buy a Sony TV, does Sony decide who your PayTV provider is and what channels you are permitted to subscibe to? Apple does this on the Iphone.
PS3.
Does your local grocer prevent you from buying groceries from a different grocer? Apple does this on the Iphone.
The grocer decides what they will offer for sale.
Does Microsoft prevent you from installing software from non-MS approved sources on Windows? Apple does this on the Iphone.
Xbox 360.
Just because Sony has TVs that aren't tied to their services, and MS doesn't lock down Windows like they do the Xbox, that doesn't mean they don't also do that on their other products. Otherwise, I could just as easily respond with, "Does Apple prevent you from installing software from non-Apple approved sources on Mac OS X? MS does this on the xbox!"
As for the grocer, just like with the iPhone, if you don't want the products they offer, you go somewhere else. I'm unaware of anyone who is required to buy an iPhone.
Apple does not control one aspect of the Iphone, Apple controls all aspects of the Iphone. Your rant makes no sense.
Bullshit. They control the store. The claim that Apple "controls all aspects of the Iphone [sic]" makes the term "control" meaningless. If Apple controls everything about the iPhone (for example, they control what music I can listen to? What web pages I can visit?), then so does MS with Windows.
The only thing they control, actually go out of their way to exert control over, is the products they carry in their store. Anything else they control is just normal, like whether it will ship with support for Flash, or whether it's locked to a specific carrier.
1. But this doesnt tell you who Apple have given the data to.
YES IT DOES. The app is listed right there in the preferences. It does it right there when it asks. You're right that the little arrow doesn't say which app is using it, and if you've used a bunch of different location-aware apps and are using a handful at the moment, you may not know for sure which one is accessing your location, but that's not really a problem. If it's a problem for you, just reset location permissions and see which app asks.
2. Many programs will refuse to work if not given permission.
So what? Don't run the app then. This isn't something Apple is doing, it's the app developer. And perhaps you have some examples in mind? Because the only apps that I'm aware of that won't work without your location are those that either logically, or legally, need it. Specifically, mapping apps (and even those will run, they just won't be able to show you where you are) and apps where TV content is streamed (thus requiring you to be in a specific geographic region).
3. Apple have the ability to override your settings.
They don't. I mean, sure, because they wrote the OS, they can write it to override your settings, but there's absolutely no indication whatsoever that they've done so, except for any legal requirements pertaining to E911 regulations (which isn't Apple-specific, all handsets must follow these regulations, and I don't think they actually have to give exact GPS coordinates, just cell-tower info).
It looks to me like they are actually respecting our privacy,
By selling your data to third parties. What colour is the sky in your world?
Citation?
Apple wants to kill the Mac OS desktop. Thus far I've been called a Troll, Naive and Insane. Now I am vindicated as developers have said the same thing.
Apple doesn't want to kill the desktop, the desktop will be around for quite some time, and they want to be there until the end.
Apple isn't going to kill the Imac and Macbook lines, they will simply replace the current NEXT based OS with the future versions of IOS and naturally more complex systems are more prone to unexpected issues.
iOS is Nextstep, just with (mainly) UIKit replacing AppKit (there are more differences between Mac OS X and iOS, but this is main difference in terms of its relation to Nextstep). As for replacing Mac OS X with iOS, this doesn't make any sense. iOS is designed for small multitouch screens. This notion of iOS on the desktop is just as misguided as the idea of an iPad running Mac OS X. It can be done, but it would make the product worse.
Having two disparate OS lines is detrimental to the long term success of this goal [homogeneity].
Perhaps, but the gain in homogeneity would not offset the loss in quality of the Mac platform.
Control. Fanboys may defend Apple's control for various reasons, mostly using cognitive dissonance
FYI, when you get called a troll, it's for bullshit like this. Calling those who disagree with you "fanboys" makes you a troll, de facto. You may not realize it, leaving you to wonder "what the hell did I say that makes me a troll?" leading you to a conclusion that it must be just a bunch of "fanboys" who just don't want to hear the truth (hence your claim of cognitive dissonance), reinforcing your notion that we're just "fanboys", and therefore our arguments are dismissed out of hand.
Anyway, my point being, if you don't want to be seen as a troll, drop that word from your vocabulary completely, even when you think that there's a situation where it incontrovertibly applies.
They want to stop the hackintosh, they want to prevent more clones and they want to control what the end users experiences.
And this is why you are wrong, whether you get called troll or not. The above, which is pretty much the extent of their "control" is fairly limited, and very weak grounds upon which to base any sort of grand notion that Apple wants to increase control over their users.
The "control" over the hackintosh is obviously very limited, and not the sort of control which leads to any sort of slippery slope issues. They want you to buy a Mac if you want to run Mac OS X. The Mac and their OS are a whole. You may not like that that's how they see it, and that that's how they go about it, but some sort of overarching "control" it is not.
As for "controlling what the end user experiences". That's overstating things quite much. They don't want to control what the user experiences, with the fundamental exception that they want to exclude a set of very rational things. Primarily, buggy software, spyware, and ports which fail to make good use of the platform. They don't want control over my experience other than to help see to it that I don't have to deal with such crap. And when us "fanboys" say (as you said in your post) "it's for your own good and other such excuses", what we're saying is that "it makes the product better". That's why we willingly choose Apple products, so we don't have to deal with a bunch of crap. It's also a huge part of why Apple products do so well even when surrounded by competition whose primary advantage is less "control".
This wont happen overnight, not even the RDF turned to eleven could pull that one off. It will happen over time in baby steps and be hailed by the fanboys.
It (although not the "it" you've been going on about) will be hailed because it will make our lives better. The "it" won't be locking down the Mac, or replacing M