With net neutrality not an issue, I wonder if AT&T will have its arm twisted into giving "free" passage to any Apple specified content where it doesn't contribute to the cap, while anything from Hulu, YouTube, and other places get charged the metered rates. This way, users end up going to Apple's content because it doesn't cost them anything.
If Apple resorts to this, then that'd be a great reason to avoid Apple's content at all costs as a form of protest against a business practice that needs to be nipped in the bud and discouraged as early in the game as possible. I'm not saying the sheeple will do that, as they are not generally known for considering the full implications of their actions i.e. whether they are encouraging a business practice that is not in their interests. I'm just saying that it's a great reason independent of whether they are capable of appreciating and acting on it.
If Apple makes a deal with AT&T to not count iTunes streaming content against your cap would be a reason to boycott Apple? WTF?
Ignoring the fact that this is all imaginary right now, assuming this exact thing happens, it's a net positive for the end user. You'll note that this scenario doesn't have Apple making a deal with AT&T to charge more for Hulu et al, but charging less for iTunes content.
But this is all moot at the moment, as Apple has no such plans announced, and it's not even their style.
Maybe Apple should have allowed Flash to run on the iPad then?
There is nothing about the iPad app that couldn't have been accomplished with either HTML5 or as a native iPad app without resorting to images. The reason the Wired app uses images is that that's how Adobe decided to solve the InDesign -> iPad workflow. This solution is very Adobe. They make great creative tools, but horrible end-user presentation tools. Adobe Reader and Flash are prime examples of this.
As for allowing Flash, had the Wired App been a Flash app, it would have been smaller in size, but awful in interaction and performance. Also, those that say things like "Apple should allow Flash" seem to be ignorant of the fact that Flash is not on a single handheld device, except as a very recent beta for Android. A beta which by all accounts is atrocious.
At the moment they say they are against Flash but the problem is, whats the alternative?
Cocoa Touch on the iPhone OS. As well as HTML5. There are zero cases where Flash is technologically better than both of those.
HTML5 is still too much in it's infancy to be an acceptable alternative
On mobile devices, Flash is much, much worse. Also, HTML5 is on its ascendancy, meaning that it's improving, and doing so swiftly. Flash is relatively stagnant, and there's no indication that current handheld devices will fare well with Flash, even as the awful beta version is improved over the Summer and into the Fall.
and things like this 500mg iPad magazine shows that the other option isn't a good option since the new data plans listed are what? 2 gigs max I think before extra charges?
The Wired iPad app is not large because it's not in Flash, it's large because it contains videos and flat images. The videos in the app take up about 100MB, which is less than the PNGs, but still significant.
As for data plans, you can't even download the app over 3G. Apps larger than a certain size (I think 20MB) cannot be directly downloaded over 3G, only WiFi. Given that most everyone with an iPad, iPod touch or iPhone have WiFi, and that their device spends a significant amount of time on WiFi, and that the PC they connect their device to has either WiFi or an ethernet connection to the Internet, the caps on 3G service are not a big deal. Hell, in a pinch you could walk into an Apple Store and use their WiFi. I'm sure they'd be happy to let you use it to download a large app.
So 4 magazines and there goes your bandwidth and you have to pay more to surf the internet or only download the magazines when your on a wifi-only link (which kinda kills the whole 3g network concept).
That the coming 3G data cap for the largest standard plan only covers the data for four magazines (which you can't even download over 3G anyway), means that the whole idea of having 3G on an iPad is a flawed concept? Do you really think people would be downloading such large apps over 3G, if it were even possible, on a regular basis? If someone feels the need to download more than four 500GB magazine apps per month over 3G, and such large app downloads are allowed over 3G, these people can buy additional bandwidth at $10/GB. Not the most economical solution, but if someone is crazy enough to rely solely on 3G for such large transfers, what's another Hamilton here and there?
In the end at the worst case is that Apple should allow at least a watered down version of Flash to run since it would be better then nothing and then make it obsolete when a better technology shows up.
Apple notoriously leaves behind technology that is seen as either on the out, or as something which compromises the overall user experience, and it has served Apple very well. Flash falls into both of those categories, and as such it's futile to expect Apple to support it. It's also far from clear that supporting Flash would be to Apple's benefit, and a watered-down version would be even worse.
If you say in a non-inflammatory way that you don't like Apple and do not have an interest in their products and services, why then you are "-1, Flamebait".
That also applies if you say something in favor of the App Store, or the iPhone in general in comparison to Android. Or anything negative about Android.
In other words, welcome to the Internet, where if you say anything that someone disagrees with, you run the risk of -1 Flamebait/Troll.
As for the OP AC, his post is flamebait/troll. His post, in its entirety is:
Subj: Do not need. Do not want. Body: Apple has nothing to say that I find worth hearing. Apple has nothing to show that I find worth seeing.
No real content other than, "I hate Apple." Flamebait/Troll would apply to pretty much any topic with such a post. Android, Google, Microsoft, Linux, you name it. Maybe about BP it would get a pass...
I think you need to take a closer look at the latest generation of CULV ultra-portables. I get 8 hours of battery life out of my Core2, which means most days I simply take the laptop and a bluetooth mouse in a neoprine bag. If you want a larger laptop (10"-12") you can stretch the battery life out to 10-12 hours.
Are you replying to me? I never said anything about notebooks and battery life. And "CULV ultra-portables" are not exactly your typical notebook.
But since you brought it up, you're not being very honest. Long battery life isn't normal for PC notebooks, unless you opt for extra-large batteries. Even then, you generally have to run with things set to a notably lower setting, and avoid any heavy processing, and still fall far short of the iPad's battery life.
On the iPad, however, 10+ hours is when you run it at full tilt. Games, video, web, the works.
Longer battery life does indeed completely change usage, but this is not limited to the iPad.
I never said it was. However, the battery life on the iPad is both remarkable, and fairly unique (even if not exclusive). Even more so when you consider not having to scale down activities or carry an extra capacity battery.
In short you get a very large, sturdy and well made ultra portable and for not much more weight or form factor than an iPad with the power to run Adobe Acrobat, Lotus Notes, VPN software, Office, Photoshop etc.
Most people don't particularly care about the things that a notebook can do that an iPad can't. Your list, however, is fairly ignorant.
1. Adobe Acrobat - iPad can read and create PDFs. The additional features that Acrobat can do are not important to the vast majority of people. 2. Lotus Notes - is coming to iPad, but even so, the vast majority of people do not even know Lotus Notes exists, let alone need it. 3. VPN software - iPad supports VPN connections, but yet again, most people don't need this. 4. Office - The first thing that is even remotely useful to the average person. iPad is compatible with Word, Excel and PowerPoint, which covers the vast majority of the needs most people have for Office. Official support for Office on iPad is likely to be announced in two days. 5. Photoshop - Most people do not have Photoshop, and if they did, they'd have no idea what to do with it. For photo editing, there are plenty of quality iPad apps.
But sure, if you need a particular app or feature that is not available for iPad, then by all means a notebook is the way to go. No one ever said that an iPad can completely replace the notebook. But the case for needing a notebook is way overstated by most iPad detractors.
The iPad as said before still requires a whole hand or arm to hold it. You may as well carry something a little heavier - not much really - and you can burn/read CD/DVDs, use any Windows/Linux app and work with any file format.
Why? In terms of functionality, the iPad covers most people's needs, and does so in a form factor that is less of a burden than a notebook. Most notebooks are so bulky and heavy, and are often accompanied by peripherals, that carrying one around in one hand isn't even a reasonable option. On the other hand, an iPad will fit nicely into any bag a notebook can fit into, and do so with less bulk and less weight.
The notion that the iPad is a similar amount of trouble to carry around as a notebook is not rational.
A smart phone can just fit in your pocket (and you can make calls on it too).
A smart phone is more convenient than an iPad, but it's even more convenient still than a notebook. This isn't make your point, it does the exact opposite. It points out that giving up functionality for portability is a trade off that millions of people make every day.
The first question becomes, why would someone want to carry an iPad along with an iPhone? A significantly larger screen is something that most people can find an advantage in. The second question becomes, why would someone want to carry a notebook instead of an iPad? The additional power and functionality are nowhere near as compelling to most people as the larger screen of an iPad compared to an iPhone is. Neither the need, nor the desire is just not there for most people.
And for those that do find those things compelling (like you presumably do)? They can buy (and lug around) a notebook. Problem solved, everyone's happy (except for those that seem intent on dismissing the iPad).
Yes, an iPad is more portable. The question is whether it is more portable enough.
The first question is whether the iPad is more portable, and it is. Only then does the second question come into play. The first question is pretty much universally true. The second question is a matter of opinion. An opinion which I'm highly confident that you do not share with the majority of people. I'm not saying that invalidates your opinion. On the contrary, your opinion is quite valid for you. I'm just pointing out the alternate, more prevalent view.
To put it another way, when would I use an iPad that I couldn't use a laptop?
That is so not "putting it another way". Put another way would be "when would I prefer to bring an iPad instead of a notebook?" And the main answer to that is obvious, when you don't want to lug around a notebook.
So, what's the situations where an iPad does the things my laptop can't?
Again, the same nonsensical question. In fact, it's exactly reversed, because the notebook is the one that needs more justification to be lugged around. The question really is, "what are the situations where I need (or sufficiently desire) the things a notebook can do that an iPad can't?"
For some people (you, I imagine), the set of situations where you need (or want) a notebook far exceed the number of situations where the iPad would suffice or be desirable.
But for a lot of people. In fact, I'd say the overwhelming majority if people, the iPad is far more preferable in most circumstances than a notebook.
I know it's lighter and smaller, but my laptop is small enough and light enough for me anyway so that's not going to get me to get an iPad.
And I have no desire to convince you to buy an iPad, or to even want an iPad. I'm only trying to point out that portability does matter, and for most people, an iPad, as a portable device, is far superior to a notebook. There will always be people with different needs and preferences.
Bag, case, whatever. Let's abstract this down to what the problem is: The iPad means I still have to use a hand to carry it, whether holding it, having it under my arm, in a bag, case, whatever. It's the same problem in that sense as a laptop.
You are seriously stretching the similarity here. The iPad is significantly more portable than a notebook (even a thin 13" notebook, like a MacBook Pro). Even if you ignore the process of disconnecting the cords and putting it into a bag or sleeve as well as carrying any accessories (like power adapter), and just focus on transporting it, the experience is not even remotely comperable.
The only notebooks I would consider anything close to similar to carrying an iPad is either a MacBook Air, or one of the thinner netbooks.
The differences are then down to weight. I can carry my laptop just fine. In the bag. With a power charger. So weight isn't a problem.
Except then you're now toting a bag around. Having commuted with notebooks, netbooks, iPads, and iPhones, I can tell you there's a very noticeable difference between each of them. The difference between an iPhone and an iPad is comparable in magnitude to the difference between an iPad and a small (13") notebook.
If the majority, in a functioning democracy, want (thing), then it would be in the best interests of that democracy to provide it. Otherwise it isn't a democracy at all, is it?
That doesn't clarify your incoherency one bit. Especially either the notion that people should move from state to state in response to something like segregation, or what you meant by "handing majority control over to a minority".
When (thing) becomes segregation it seems untenable, but it genuinely isn't, especially in specific cases.
You don't get to redefine terms being used in order to support your point. Segregation has a very specific understanding, and:
Take for example a Latino eatery that wants to only communicate in Spanish and only serve native-speakers.
Is not it.
If their state's laws wish to allow them that freedom, the federal government can't really step in an disagree without a constitutional amendment. These transactions occur entirely within state lines, between consenting adults, etc.
You haven't explained how this is an example of "handing majority control over to a minority", or in support of expecting people to move from state to state. You're rambling.
The key point that any logical person, such as yourself, ought to notice is that the 14th and 15th amendments were legally passed to address exactly these concerns. Should we, as a people, feel that the Civil Rights Act should have been the Civil Rights Amendment, we have the mechanisms to make that happen. And we have demonstrated that those mechanisms work in even a non-digital age.
Still waiting for the explanation of "handing majority control over to a minority", or leaving one state for another.
The entire line of reasoning is a non-starter, and my points are perfectly coherent. Do, though, let me know if you need any more words to help you reason them out.
More words are definitely needed, but do try to direct them to the topic of "handing majority control over to a minority", or moving.
The federal government already wields power unconstitutionally
That's up to the Supreme Court to decide, not you.
amending the constitution to make it more illegal doesn't seem like it would be very effective.
If you amend the Constitution, the Supreme Court will have a new set of rules they are to follow, or face potential impeachment. So really, I don't see how it wouldn't be effective, unless the amendment is as terribly worded as the second amendment is.
If you find that the federal government needs more power, amend the Constitution to grant those powers. Anything else violates the 10th Amendment.
I'm not sure what decade you're living in, but the federal government already has that power. Maybe you mean if you think they need less power, you should amend the Constitution?
So rather than hold them to the laws that are already on the books, we should pass new, redundant versions of them? Because this will work better, how exactly?
What if instead we just stop the abuses and make them toe the line a while?
Your interpretation of the law and of reality are highly delusional.
First, the law. You are stating that the law (specifically, the Constitution) doesn't allow the power that the federal government current wields. However, you don't get to make that determination. The Supreme Court does, and the court has already spoken. I'm not saying I necessarily disagree with your opinion on what the Constitution says. I'm just saying that your (and my) opinion on this matter doesn't make it real, only the opinions of, ultimately, the Supreme Court do.
For the second part, the reality is that the Constitution has not prevented the Constitutional transgressions you are claiming are happening. If that's the case, then yes, if you amend the Constitution, I very much do expect this to work better. If you think that the states should have the right to engage in segregation, then an amendment that says, "the rights of the states to engage in segregation shall not be abridged" would do the trick.
That's the example in this thread, but any other example will do. "The rights of the states to outlaw abortion shall not be infringed", "the rights of the people to own firearms shall not be limited, infringed, require licensing or any other form of registration or oversight by any government. This includes the right of the people to carry concealed weapons, and these weapons may take any form the individual desires, including, but not limited to, caliber, clip size, barrel length, and any other attribute the weapon may possess". Whatever you want. We outlawed alcohol less than 100 years ago with a Constitutional amendment.
If you want to make decisive and lasting change, there is no better place than the Constitution. In fact, there's no other place to do it than there.
Man, my ancestors moved from germany to the US because of racial discrimination. I'm not going to shed any tears for people if under the same pressure they protest that it's too hard to just move from one state to another in the same country and land mass.
That doesn't make any damned sense. The fact that your ancestors fled the fucking holocaust (assumption based on your vague story), segregation is OK?
Hell, I'm disabled and poor and even I managed to move cross country a couple weeks back for no pressing reason other than boredom.
I never said people can't do it, I said it's absurd to expect them to do it over something like segregation, when you can simply outlaw segregation altogether.
Just so I'm clear, because your (great?) grandparents were able to flee Germany during or around the 30s, what was going on in that country was OK? Or are you saying that an evil is OK as long as it's not as bad as has happened somewhere else? Or am I being to general, and what you're saying is that if your family went through some injustice, then if someone else is facing a less severe injustice, your position is, "fuck 'em, they can just move."?
It's absurd to expect people to move from state-to-state like they are simply not stopping at BP ever again.
But this is somehow more absurd than handing majority control over to a minority - in a democratic republic?
Sorry, but this sentence isn't even coherent. First of, it's exceptionally absurd to think that expecting people to uproot in response to segregation is a valid solution. Second, I have no idea what you mean by "handing majority control over to a minority".
in a democratic republic?
That's a redundancy. All republics are, by definition, democratic. Even the USSR was nominally a democracy (in that people supposedly "voted" for their leaders, although in no way can the democratic process of the USSR be called anything remotely functional). Point being, "democratic republic" is a phrase that's meant to imply that democracy is a bad thing.
There's no perfect scenario that keeps everyone happy, but the 'sovereign States' concept is better than anything I'm aware of at giving people a shot at living the dream.
You're right, there is no perfect scenario, but I fail to understand the logic that leads one to argue that allowing states to engage in segregation is the best known way of "giving people a shot at living the dream."
Don't idiots every get tired of blah-blahing that response over and over again?
If by that you mean idiots who think they can make up any shit about the person they are replying to and get modded up, no, I don't think they tire of it. And even if they do, there's always another waiting to take their place.
No, wanting the federal government to act as outlined in the constitution does not mean we want slavery. Wanting the 10th amendment enforced does not mean we want slavery. Wanting local jurisdiction to have more control of their localities does not me we want slavery.
Please quote where either I, or the person I replied to, said anything in line with what you wrote.
Here, let me quote the whole fucking thing for you, since you were too lazy to even read it, let alone quote it (it's not even two complete sentences):
Protecting and enforcing the values upon which the nation was founded does not require massive micro management.
Like slavery...
I never said or implied that you, or people like you, want slavery. I made the point that "the values upon which the nation was founded" includes slavery.
And what will you do when some of these localities start bringing back segregation, or other policies abhorrent to the nation as a whole? The federal government needs to be able to protect the rights of citizens across the country. That's how it got to be this way in the first place. Expecting people to uproot their lives and move to a different locality that respects them isn't a reasonable fix.
If you find that the federal government needs more power, amend the Constitution to grant those powers. Anything else violates the 10th Amendment.
I'm not sure what decade you're living in, but the federal government already has that power. Maybe you mean if you think they need less power, you should amend the Constitution?
And what will you do when some of these localities start bringing back segregation, or other policies abhorrent to the nation as a whole?
I will move to a state that better fits my needs and beliefs. Or just go down the street and spend my money elsewhere.
That's not as simple as you make it sound. Friends, family, schools, kids, jobs, money, opportunity. These things all have to be in alignment in order to simply "up and move" to a more agreeable state. If <insert southern state here> were to reinstitute segregation, do you think all the people affected or offended by this would be able to, or should be expected to, uproot their lives like that and move?
It's absurd to expect people to move from state-to-state like they are simply not stopping at BP ever again.
You're being dishonest. Your original claim was spyware specifically.
It was an example, not an exhaustive list. Like I said later, I was being kind to you by not saying virus, which the Mac has none.
There's no more spyware on Linux than on OS X (~0), no more viruses, and no more trojans.
Now who's being dishonest? You've notably left out root kits.
In addition, you can't pretend a 10% desktop userbase (a gross overestimate: it's between 5% and 8%) equals a bigger share on the server, which is the main attack vector for Linux; unattended servers getting rooted.
I never said anything about servers. I'm talking overall numbers, and I'm correct (within reason, I also didn't say "exactly 10%", but "~10%", which is reasonably accurate enough for this discussion).
NextStep was never used on the server, btw.
Ignoring the fact that the first web server ever was a NeXT cube, NeXT's server market share is irrelevant. You claimed that Linux was around longer than Mac OS X, which isn't exactly correct (neither is the claim that Nextstep was never used as a server, but that's completely off topic and irrelevant).
So, let's say Linux is rooted more often than OS X -- for computers open to attack from the internet, Linux has 172 times the installed base of OS X.
Your insistence on limiting the discussion to servers is not reasonable on the topic of Mac OS X not needing antivirus software. Why are you so touchy on the topic of Linux? It has a significantly smaller market share than Mac OS X, and more malware. Both true facts, and the relative shares of Mac OS X and Linux on the server doesn't change that.
Also, I haven't said there is spyware on the Mac. In fact, I've said there's none, and that there's nothing special to it. You still haven't pointed out any spyware for Linux.
I never said there was, I said "malware".
Of the two topics, we're not going to agree on the status of Mac OS X and malware. The numbers indicate something out of the norm, but you just don't care. Admitting that there's something there doesn't mean you have to like Apple or anything, but to be so obstinate on the topic is puzzling. Theory is one thing, but what's actually the case should count for something, shouldn't it?
As for the second issue, your straw man about people claiming Mac OS X is somehow immune to malware, I assume that you have ceded this, since you've chosen not to address it.
My argument is simply: It isn't notable or disproportionate at all. OS X is no exception.
And my argument is you're wrong.
I don't think anyone is disputing these facts:
1. Windows has ~90% market share, but well more than 90% market share of malware. 2. Mac OS X has ~10% market share, but has well less than 10% market share of malware. 3. Linux has a couple percent market share, but has more total malware, than Mac OS X.
In that scenario, Mac OS X most certainly does stand out particularly uniquely. In other words, in relative terms, both Windows and Linux have more malware than Mac OS X. Not only that, but they each both have more total malware than Mac OS X, even though one of them has significantly less market share.
Yet somehow you claim that <waves hands> and therefore <something vague> Mac OS X isn't special.
it's [Linux] both older and much bigger on the server than OS X
Aside: OS X predates Linux by many years, as it's the modern version of Nextstep.
Linux does have more rootkits (it's both older and much bigger on the server than OS X; the typical Linux install running services open to the net), but no more spyware, and fewer trojans (due to less (pirate) software being downloaded from dubious sources).
This is an example of your creative interpretation. Taken in total, there is more malware for Linux than there is for Mac OS X, in spite of Mac OS X's market share being many times that of Linux's.
So: Your claim is that OS X is exceptional. My claim is that 1) it isn't
A claim you've yet to support. All you've said is "There is spyware on the Mac, Google it!" and "Linux, um... something something".
and 2) neither does it have any special resistance.
That wasn't what you said, though. You said, "If you think OS X has effective protection against trojans and root kits, you're deluding yourself." That was a straw man argument which I was calling you out on.
Still, you don't have a point. There's nothing disproportionate to Mac OS X's lack of spyware -- spyware is pretty much a Windows only thing. So OS X isn't an exception due to a disproportionate lack of spyware. BeOS, Linux, *BSD, OS/2, AmigaOS, Hurd, Plan9, all are just as "few and far between".
Mac OS X is the number 2 operating system, at around 10% of users, but is not the number 2 operating system in terms of malware (Linux is #2), and it also has far less than 10% of the malware out there.
BeOS, Linux, *BSD, OS/2, AmigaOS, Hurd, Plan9, all are just as "few and far between".
And all of those OS's combined make up less than the Macs market share. I never said they had a lot of malware or anything like that.
Also, this story is about a rootkit. Of course a rootkit can be used for spying, just like it can be used for absolutely everything else, but spyware is so much less. In reality, a rootkit will be installed either on purpose or as a trojan. In the context of this discussion, it has to be discussed as a trojan, which is something AV software should take care of.
I was replying to the topic of OS X not needing antivirus software. You can't arbitrarily limit the topics I can discuss, especially if those topics address a comment someone has made. For example, I can't tell you not to bring up OS/2 because this is a story about Android.
OS X offers no particular protection against trojans
No one said it it. It was only *you* who are claiming that that's what people have said here.
and does in fact have a real problem with it (use google for OS X + botnet).
That's an absolute lie. Mac OS X does not have a "real problem with trojans". There are Mac OS X trojans, but they aren't a problem. They are a rarity.
So, to recapitulate: OS X is nothing special.
Please quote where I said it was, in terms of being somehow immune or otherwise significantly resistant, technologically, to spyware, trojans or rootkits. All that I said is that Mac OS X doesn't need antivirus software because it doesn't really have a malware (of any type) problem. Just because there exist a few trojans does not mean that it's a problem. People still die the bubonic plague, but it's not something any rational person would classify as a problem.
For every "unlocked" phone that allows you to install unsigned software, yes. That's the price you pay for unlocked hardware. There are exceptions to the rule, (OS X) but they are very few and far between.
How exactly is OS X an exception?
Due to the notably disproportionate lack of spyware on the Mac.
By that logic, if I leave my front door open year round yet don't get burgled, my home must be burglar proof!
Please explain how your analogy is correct. Specifically, quote where I said Mac OS X is spyware-proof (or anything else that validates your analogy).
Oh wait, maybe first you could simply quote the part you left out where I said the exact opposite! Here, let me save you the trouble:
If you think OS X has effective protection against trojans and root kits, you're deluding yourself.
It's strange that people seem to always bring this up when no one is making the claim that is supposedly being debunked.
Doesn't really help your case, I can see why you left it out. Not terribly honest on your behalf, however.
No I didn't. That was someone else. I made the claim that v1 didn't make the claim that you were debunking.
And now you try to make the argument that OS X has little need for anti-virus software due to there being a disproportionate(?) lack of spyware for the platform. Spyware != virus, and a lack of spyware is hardly unique for OS X either.
I claimed that Mac OS X was uniquely lacking spyware, I said it was disproportionate in the problem it has with spyware. You don't get to make points by attacking things people aren't saying.
As for virus vs spyware, I never said there wasn't a difference. I was agreeing with the reason Mac OS X doesn't need antivirus is that there is very little problem with spyware. You may not know this, but antivirus software also targets spyware (maybe you should send them feedback telling them that "virus != spyware", and see how they take it). I was actually being kind to your point, however, while there is a small amount of spyware for the Mac, there are zero viruses.
At any rate, this story has nothing to do with spyware.
That's not true. The story talks about collecting personal data from the phone. But that doesn't even come into play as what I was replying to was what you said, and you were replying to someone who was talking about antivirus and malware. As far as both the thread goes, and as the story itself goes, I was entirely on topic.
Mac OS X already has enough of a trojan problem that Mac OS X trojans have been used to create botnets
Please quote where I or the OP said otherwise. As for myself, I said that it isn't much of a problem, and it isn't. I don't know of an actual botnet. Maybe there has been one (I'm suspicious of your claim), but as things currently stand, all forms of malware, whichever category you wish to limit yourself to, or all combined, Mac OS X does not have a problem with them. There are a few examples of spyware, and a Trojan or two, etc., but that's about it.
You fanboys really are a confused and delusional bunch.
What's confused and delusional is what you seem to think anyone here is saying. You keep replying with straw men. When someone says you don't need antivirus on the Mac, that doesn't mean they said, "OS X has effective protection against trojans and root kits".
Try responding to what people have actually said next time.
The wording on it is unclear, but it sounds like you have to be an existing user of the data plan to have it grandfathered in.:
Existing iPad customers who have the $29.99 per month unlimited plan can keep that plan or switch to the new $25 per month plan with 2 GB of data.
I don't think it was unclear. If you are already on the unlimited plan, you can stay with it.
If that's the case, it is indeed bait-and-switch. You were supposed to be able to go on or off of it month-to-month, so you shouldn't have to currently have the $29.99 unlimited plan in order to have it as an option.
iPad is still month-to-month, no contract. Bait and switch doesn't mean you don't change your prices and plans. I agree that the timing is shitty, but this is in no way something that only the tech industry can get away with, and is not an example of changing the terms of a contract out from under you.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not necessarily that interested in watching TV while I'm out and about because I'm doing other things like driving.
You don't watch TV while driving? You don't even want to do watch TV while driving?
And you call yourself an American!
With net neutrality not an issue, I wonder if AT&T will have its arm twisted into giving "free" passage to any Apple specified content where it doesn't contribute to the cap, while anything from Hulu, YouTube, and other places get charged the metered rates. This way, users end up going to Apple's content because it doesn't cost them anything.
If Apple resorts to this, then that'd be a great reason to avoid Apple's content at all costs as a form of protest against a business practice that needs to be nipped in the bud and discouraged as early in the game as possible. I'm not saying the sheeple will do that, as they are not generally known for considering the full implications of their actions i.e. whether they are encouraging a business practice that is not in their interests. I'm just saying that it's a great reason independent of whether they are capable of appreciating and acting on it.
If Apple makes a deal with AT&T to not count iTunes streaming content against your cap would be a reason to boycott Apple? WTF?
Ignoring the fact that this is all imaginary right now, assuming this exact thing happens, it's a net positive for the end user. You'll note that this scenario doesn't have Apple making a deal with AT&T to charge more for Hulu et al, but charging less for iTunes content.
But this is all moot at the moment, as Apple has no such plans announced, and it's not even their style.
Maybe Apple should have allowed Flash to run on the iPad then?
There is nothing about the iPad app that couldn't have been accomplished with either HTML5 or as a native iPad app without resorting to images. The reason the Wired app uses images is that that's how Adobe decided to solve the InDesign -> iPad workflow. This solution is very Adobe. They make great creative tools, but horrible end-user presentation tools. Adobe Reader and Flash are prime examples of this.
As for allowing Flash, had the Wired App been a Flash app, it would have been smaller in size, but awful in interaction and performance. Also, those that say things like "Apple should allow Flash" seem to be ignorant of the fact that Flash is not on a single handheld device, except as a very recent beta for Android. A beta which by all accounts is atrocious.
At the moment they say they are against Flash but the problem is, whats the alternative?
Cocoa Touch on the iPhone OS. As well as HTML5. There are zero cases where Flash is technologically better than both of those.
HTML5 is still too much in it's infancy to be an acceptable alternative
On mobile devices, Flash is much, much worse. Also, HTML5 is on its ascendancy, meaning that it's improving, and doing so swiftly. Flash is relatively stagnant, and there's no indication that current handheld devices will fare well with Flash, even as the awful beta version is improved over the Summer and into the Fall.
and things like this 500mg iPad magazine shows that the other option isn't a good option since the new data plans listed are what? 2 gigs max I think before extra charges?
The Wired iPad app is not large because it's not in Flash, it's large because it contains videos and flat images. The videos in the app take up about 100MB, which is less than the PNGs, but still significant.
As for data plans, you can't even download the app over 3G. Apps larger than a certain size (I think 20MB) cannot be directly downloaded over 3G, only WiFi. Given that most everyone with an iPad, iPod touch or iPhone have WiFi, and that their device spends a significant amount of time on WiFi, and that the PC they connect their device to has either WiFi or an ethernet connection to the Internet, the caps on 3G service are not a big deal. Hell, in a pinch you could walk into an Apple Store and use their WiFi. I'm sure they'd be happy to let you use it to download a large app.
So 4 magazines and there goes your bandwidth and you have to pay more to surf the internet or only download the magazines when your on a wifi-only link (which kinda kills the whole 3g network concept).
That the coming 3G data cap for the largest standard plan only covers the data for four magazines (which you can't even download over 3G anyway), means that the whole idea of having 3G on an iPad is a flawed concept? Do you really think people would be downloading such large apps over 3G, if it were even possible, on a regular basis? If someone feels the need to download more than four 500GB magazine apps per month over 3G, and such large app downloads are allowed over 3G, these people can buy additional bandwidth at $10/GB. Not the most economical solution, but if someone is crazy enough to rely solely on 3G for such large transfers, what's another Hamilton here and there?
In the end at the worst case is that Apple should allow at least a watered down version of Flash to run since it would be better then nothing and then make it obsolete when a better technology shows up.
Apple notoriously leaves behind technology that is seen as either on the out, or as something which compromises the overall user experience, and it has served Apple very well. Flash falls into both of those categories, and as such it's futile to expect Apple to support it. It's also far from clear that supporting Flash would be to Apple's benefit, and a watered-down version would be even worse.
If you say in a non-inflammatory way that you don't like Apple and do not have an interest in their products and services, why then you are "-1, Flamebait".
That also applies if you say something in favor of the App Store, or the iPhone in general in comparison to Android. Or anything negative about Android.
In other words, welcome to the Internet, where if you say anything that someone disagrees with, you run the risk of -1 Flamebait/Troll.
As for the OP AC, his post is flamebait/troll. His post, in its entirety is:
Subj: Do not need. Do not want.
Body: Apple has nothing to say that I find worth hearing. Apple has nothing to show that I find worth seeing.
No real content other than, "I hate Apple." Flamebait/Troll would apply to pretty much any topic with such a post. Android, Google, Microsoft, Linux, you name it. Maybe about BP it would get a pass...
I think you need to take a closer look at the latest generation of CULV ultra-portables. I get 8 hours of battery life out of my Core2, which means most days I simply take the laptop and a bluetooth mouse in a neoprine bag. If you want a larger laptop (10"-12") you can stretch the battery life out to 10-12 hours.
Are you replying to me? I never said anything about notebooks and battery life. And "CULV ultra-portables" are not exactly your typical notebook.
But since you brought it up, you're not being very honest. Long battery life isn't normal for PC notebooks, unless you opt for extra-large batteries. Even then, you generally have to run with things set to a notably lower setting, and avoid any heavy processing, and still fall far short of the iPad's battery life.
On the iPad, however, 10+ hours is when you run it at full tilt. Games, video, web, the works.
Longer battery life does indeed completely change usage, but this is not limited to the iPad.
I never said it was. However, the battery life on the iPad is both remarkable, and fairly unique (even if not exclusive). Even more so when you consider not having to scale down activities or carry an extra capacity battery.
In short you get a very large, sturdy and well made ultra portable and for not much more weight or form factor than an iPad
with the power to run Adobe Acrobat, Lotus Notes, VPN software, Office, Photoshop etc.
Most people don't particularly care about the things that a notebook can do that an iPad can't. Your list, however, is fairly ignorant.
1. Adobe Acrobat - iPad can read and create PDFs. The additional features that Acrobat can do are not important to the vast majority of people.
2. Lotus Notes - is coming to iPad, but even so, the vast majority of people do not even know Lotus Notes exists, let alone need it.
3. VPN software - iPad supports VPN connections, but yet again, most people don't need this.
4. Office - The first thing that is even remotely useful to the average person. iPad is compatible with Word, Excel and PowerPoint, which covers the vast majority of the needs most people have for Office. Official support for Office on iPad is likely to be announced in two days.
5. Photoshop - Most people do not have Photoshop, and if they did, they'd have no idea what to do with it. For photo editing, there are plenty of quality iPad apps.
But sure, if you need a particular app or feature that is not available for iPad, then by all means a notebook is the way to go. No one ever said that an iPad can completely replace the notebook. But the case for needing a notebook is way overstated by most iPad detractors.
The iPad as said before still requires a whole hand or arm to hold it. You may as well carry something a little heavier - not much really - and you can burn/read CD/DVDs, use any Windows/Linux app and work with any file format.
Why? In terms of functionality, the iPad covers most people's needs, and does so in a form factor that is less of a burden than a notebook. Most notebooks are so bulky and heavy, and are often accompanied by peripherals, that carrying one around in one hand isn't even a reasonable option. On the other hand, an iPad will fit nicely into any bag a notebook can fit into, and do so with less bulk and less weight.
The notion that the iPad is a similar amount of trouble to carry around as a notebook is not rational.
A smart phone can just fit in your pocket (and you can make calls on it too).
A smart phone is more convenient than an iPad, but it's even more convenient still than a notebook. This isn't make your point, it does the exact opposite. It points out that giving up functionality for portability is a trade off that millions of people make every day.
The first question becomes, why would someone want to carry an iPad along with an iPhone? A significantly larger screen is something that most people can find an advantage in. The second question becomes, why would someone want to carry a notebook instead of an iPad? The additional power and functionality are nowhere near as compelling to most people as the larger screen of an iPad compared to an iPhone is. Neither the need, nor the desire is just not there for most people.
And for those that do find those things compelling (like you presumably do)? They can buy (and lug around) a notebook. Problem solved, everyone's happy (except for those that seem intent on dismissing the iPad).
Yes, an iPad is more portable. The question is whether it is more portable enough.
The first question is whether the iPad is more portable, and it is. Only then does the second question come into play. The first question is pretty much universally true. The second question is a matter of opinion. An opinion which I'm highly confident that you do not share with the majority of people. I'm not saying that invalidates your opinion. On the contrary, your opinion is quite valid for you. I'm just pointing out the alternate, more prevalent view.
To put it another way, when would I use an iPad that I couldn't use a laptop?
That is so not "putting it another way". Put another way would be "when would I prefer to bring an iPad instead of a notebook?" And the main answer to that is obvious, when you don't want to lug around a notebook.
So, what's the situations where an iPad does the things my laptop can't?
Again, the same nonsensical question. In fact, it's exactly reversed, because the notebook is the one that needs more justification to be lugged around. The question really is, "what are the situations where I need (or sufficiently desire) the things a notebook can do that an iPad can't?"
For some people (you, I imagine), the set of situations where you need (or want) a notebook far exceed the number of situations where the iPad would suffice or be desirable.
But for a lot of people. In fact, I'd say the overwhelming majority if people, the iPad is far more preferable in most circumstances than a notebook.
I know it's lighter and smaller, but my laptop is small enough and light enough for me anyway so that's not going to get me to get an iPad.
And I have no desire to convince you to buy an iPad, or to even want an iPad. I'm only trying to point out that portability does matter, and for most people, an iPad, as a portable device, is far superior to a notebook. There will always be people with different needs and preferences.
Bag, case, whatever. Let's abstract this down to what the problem is: The iPad means I still have to use a hand to carry it, whether holding it, having it under my arm, in a bag, case, whatever. It's the same problem in that sense as a laptop.
You are seriously stretching the similarity here. The iPad is significantly more portable than a notebook (even a thin 13" notebook, like a MacBook Pro). Even if you ignore the process of disconnecting the cords and putting it into a bag or sleeve as well as carrying any accessories (like power adapter), and just focus on transporting it, the experience is not even remotely comperable.
The only notebooks I would consider anything close to similar to carrying an iPad is either a MacBook Air, or one of the thinner netbooks.
The differences are then down to weight. I can carry my laptop just fine. In the bag. With a power charger. So weight isn't a problem.
Except then you're now toting a bag around. Having commuted with notebooks, netbooks, iPads, and iPhones, I can tell you there's a very noticeable difference between each of them. The difference between an iPhone and an iPad is comparable in magnitude to the difference between an iPad and a small (13") notebook.
Maybe I can clear it up for you:
If the majority, in a functioning democracy, want (thing), then it would be in the best interests of that democracy to provide it. Otherwise it isn't a democracy at all, is it?
That doesn't clarify your incoherency one bit. Especially either the notion that people should move from state to state in response to something like segregation, or what you meant by "handing majority control over to a minority".
When (thing) becomes segregation it seems untenable, but it genuinely isn't, especially in specific cases.
You don't get to redefine terms being used in order to support your point. Segregation has a very specific understanding, and:
Take for example a Latino eatery that wants to only communicate in Spanish and only serve native-speakers.
Is not it.
If their state's laws wish to allow them that freedom, the federal government can't really step in an disagree without a constitutional amendment. These transactions occur entirely within state lines, between consenting adults, etc.
You haven't explained how this is an example of "handing majority control over to a minority", or in support of expecting people to move from state to state. You're rambling.
The key point that any logical person, such as yourself, ought to notice is that the 14th and 15th amendments were legally passed to address exactly these concerns. Should we, as a people, feel that the Civil Rights Act should have been the Civil Rights Amendment, we have the mechanisms to make that happen. And we have demonstrated that those mechanisms work in even a non-digital age.
Still waiting for the explanation of "handing majority control over to a minority", or leaving one state for another.
The entire line of reasoning is a non-starter, and my points are perfectly coherent. Do, though, let me know if you need any more words to help you reason them out.
More words are definitely needed, but do try to direct them to the topic of "handing majority control over to a minority", or moving.
The federal government already wields power unconstitutionally
That's up to the Supreme Court to decide, not you.
amending the constitution to make it more illegal doesn't seem like it would be very effective.
If you amend the Constitution, the Supreme Court will have a new set of rules they are to follow, or face potential impeachment. So really, I don't see how it wouldn't be effective, unless the amendment is as terribly worded as the second amendment is.
If you find that the federal government needs more power, amend the Constitution to grant those powers. Anything else violates the 10th Amendment.
I'm not sure what decade you're living in, but the federal government already has that power. Maybe you mean if you think they need less power, you should amend the Constitution?
So rather than hold them to the laws that are already on the books, we should pass new, redundant versions of them? Because this will work better, how exactly?
What if instead we just stop the abuses and make them toe the line a while?
Your interpretation of the law and of reality are highly delusional.
First, the law. You are stating that the law (specifically, the Constitution) doesn't allow the power that the federal government current wields. However, you don't get to make that determination. The Supreme Court does, and the court has already spoken. I'm not saying I necessarily disagree with your opinion on what the Constitution says. I'm just saying that your (and my) opinion on this matter doesn't make it real, only the opinions of, ultimately, the Supreme Court do.
For the second part, the reality is that the Constitution has not prevented the Constitutional transgressions you are claiming are happening. If that's the case, then yes, if you amend the Constitution, I very much do expect this to work better. If you think that the states should have the right to engage in segregation, then an amendment that says, "the rights of the states to engage in segregation shall not be abridged" would do the trick.
That's the example in this thread, but any other example will do. "The rights of the states to outlaw abortion shall not be infringed", "the rights of the people to own firearms shall not be limited, infringed, require licensing or any other form of registration or oversight by any government. This includes the right of the people to carry concealed weapons, and these weapons may take any form the individual desires, including, but not limited to, caliber, clip size, barrel length, and any other attribute the weapon may possess". Whatever you want. We outlawed alcohol less than 100 years ago with a Constitutional amendment.
If you want to make decisive and lasting change, there is no better place than the Constitution. In fact, there's no other place to do it than there.
Man, my ancestors moved from germany to the US because of racial discrimination. I'm not going to shed any tears for people if under the same pressure they protest that it's too hard to just move from one state to another in the same country and land mass.
That doesn't make any damned sense. The fact that your ancestors fled the fucking holocaust (assumption based on your vague story), segregation is OK?
Hell, I'm disabled and poor and even I managed to move cross country a couple weeks back for no pressing reason other than boredom.
I never said people can't do it, I said it's absurd to expect them to do it over something like segregation, when you can simply outlaw segregation altogether.
Just so I'm clear, because your (great?) grandparents were able to flee Germany during or around the 30s, what was going on in that country was OK? Or are you saying that an evil is OK as long as it's not as bad as has happened somewhere else? Or am I being to general, and what you're saying is that if your family went through some injustice, then if someone else is facing a less severe injustice, your position is, "fuck 'em, they can just move."?
It's absurd to expect people to move from state-to-state like they are simply not stopping at BP ever again.
But this is somehow more absurd than handing majority control over to a minority - in a democratic republic?
Sorry, but this sentence isn't even coherent. First of, it's exceptionally absurd to think that expecting people to uproot in response to segregation is a valid solution. Second, I have no idea what you mean by "handing majority control over to a minority".
in a democratic republic?
That's a redundancy. All republics are, by definition, democratic. Even the USSR was nominally a democracy (in that people supposedly "voted" for their leaders, although in no way can the democratic process of the USSR be called anything remotely functional). Point being, "democratic republic" is a phrase that's meant to imply that democracy is a bad thing.
There's no perfect scenario that keeps everyone happy, but the 'sovereign States' concept is better than anything I'm aware of at giving people a shot at living the dream.
You're right, there is no perfect scenario, but I fail to understand the logic that leads one to argue that allowing states to engage in segregation is the best known way of "giving people a shot at living the dream."
Don't idiots every get tired of blah-blahing that response over and over again?
If by that you mean idiots who think they can make up any shit about the person they are replying to and get modded up, no, I don't think they tire of it. And even if they do, there's always another waiting to take their place.
No, wanting the federal government to act as outlined in the constitution does not mean we want slavery. Wanting the 10th amendment enforced does not mean we want slavery. Wanting local jurisdiction to have more control of their localities does not me we want slavery.
Please quote where either I, or the person I replied to, said anything in line with what you wrote.
Here, let me quote the whole fucking thing for you, since you were too lazy to even read it, let alone quote it (it's not even two complete sentences):
Protecting and enforcing the values upon which the nation was founded does not require massive micro management.
Like slavery...
I never said or implied that you, or people like you, want slavery. I made the point that "the values upon which the nation was founded" includes slavery.
And what will you do when some of these localities start bringing back segregation, or other policies abhorrent to the nation as a whole? The federal government needs to be able to protect the rights of citizens across the country. That's how it got to be this way in the first place. Expecting people to uproot their lives and move to a different locality that respects them isn't a reasonable fix.
If you find that the federal government needs more power, amend the Constitution to grant those powers. Anything else violates the 10th Amendment.
I'm not sure what decade you're living in, but the federal government already has that power. Maybe you mean if you think they need less power, you should amend the Constitution?
And what will you do when some of these localities start bringing back segregation, or other policies abhorrent to the nation as a whole?
I will move to a state that better fits my needs and beliefs. Or just go down the street and spend my money elsewhere.
That's not as simple as you make it sound. Friends, family, schools, kids, jobs, money, opportunity. These things all have to be in alignment in order to simply "up and move" to a more agreeable state. If <insert southern state here> were to reinstitute segregation, do you think all the people affected or offended by this would be able to, or should be expected to, uproot their lives like that and move?
It's absurd to expect people to move from state-to-state like they are simply not stopping at BP ever again.
Protecting and enforcing the values upon which the nation was founded does not require massive micro management.
Like slavery...
You're being dishonest. Your original claim was spyware specifically.
It was an example, not an exhaustive list. Like I said later, I was being kind to you by not saying virus, which the Mac has none.
There's no more spyware on Linux than on OS X (~0), no more viruses, and no more trojans.
Now who's being dishonest? You've notably left out root kits.
In addition, you can't pretend a 10% desktop userbase (a gross overestimate: it's between 5% and 8%) equals a bigger share on the server, which is the main attack vector for Linux; unattended servers getting rooted.
I never said anything about servers. I'm talking overall numbers, and I'm correct (within reason, I also didn't say "exactly 10%", but "~10%", which is reasonably accurate enough for this discussion).
NextStep was never used on the server, btw.
Ignoring the fact that the first web server ever was a NeXT cube, NeXT's server market share is irrelevant. You claimed that Linux was around longer than Mac OS X, which isn't exactly correct (neither is the claim that Nextstep was never used as a server, but that's completely off topic and irrelevant).
So, let's say Linux is rooted more often than OS X -- for computers open to attack from the internet, Linux has 172 times the installed base of OS X.
Your insistence on limiting the discussion to servers is not reasonable on the topic of Mac OS X not needing antivirus software. Why are you so touchy on the topic of Linux? It has a significantly smaller market share than Mac OS X, and more malware. Both true facts, and the relative shares of Mac OS X and Linux on the server doesn't change that.
Also, I haven't said there is spyware on the Mac. In fact, I've said there's none, and that there's nothing special to it. You still haven't pointed out any spyware for Linux.
I never said there was, I said "malware".
Of the two topics, we're not going to agree on the status of Mac OS X and malware. The numbers indicate something out of the norm, but you just don't care. Admitting that there's something there doesn't mean you have to like Apple or anything, but to be so obstinate on the topic is puzzling. Theory is one thing, but what's actually the case should count for something, shouldn't it?
As for the second issue, your straw man about people claiming Mac OS X is somehow immune to malware, I assume that you have ceded this, since you've chosen not to address it.
My argument is simply: It isn't notable or disproportionate at all. OS X is no exception.
And my argument is you're wrong.
I don't think anyone is disputing these facts:
1. Windows has ~90% market share, but well more than 90% market share of malware.
2. Mac OS X has ~10% market share, but has well less than 10% market share of malware.
3. Linux has a couple percent market share, but has more total malware, than Mac OS X.
In that scenario, Mac OS X most certainly does stand out particularly uniquely. In other words, in relative terms, both Windows and Linux have more malware than Mac OS X. Not only that, but they each both have more total malware than Mac OS X, even though one of them has significantly less market share.
Yet somehow you claim that <waves hands> and therefore <something vague> Mac OS X isn't special.
it's [Linux] both older and much bigger on the server than OS X
Aside: OS X predates Linux by many years, as it's the modern version of Nextstep.
Linux does have more rootkits (it's both older and much bigger on the server than OS X; the typical Linux install running services open to the net), but no more spyware, and fewer trojans (due to less (pirate) software being downloaded from dubious sources).
This is an example of your creative interpretation. Taken in total, there is more malware for Linux than there is for Mac OS X, in spite of Mac OS X's market share being many times that of Linux's.
So: Your claim is that OS X is exceptional. My claim is that 1) it isn't
A claim you've yet to support. All you've said is "There is spyware on the Mac, Google it!" and "Linux, um... something something".
and 2) neither does it have any special resistance.
That wasn't what you said, though. You said, "If you think OS X has effective protection against trojans and root kits, you're deluding yourself." That was a straw man argument which I was calling you out on.
Still, you don't have a point. There's nothing disproportionate to Mac OS X's lack of spyware -- spyware is pretty much a Windows only thing. So OS X isn't an exception due to a disproportionate lack of spyware. BeOS, Linux, *BSD, OS/2, AmigaOS, Hurd, Plan9, all are just as "few and far between".
Mac OS X is the number 2 operating system, at around 10% of users, but is not the number 2 operating system in terms of malware (Linux is #2), and it also has far less than 10% of the malware out there.
BeOS, Linux, *BSD, OS/2, AmigaOS, Hurd, Plan9, all are just as "few and far between".
And all of those OS's combined make up less than the Macs market share. I never said they had a lot of malware or anything like that.
Also, this story is about a rootkit. Of course a rootkit can be used for spying, just like it can be used for absolutely everything else, but spyware is so much less. In reality, a rootkit will be installed either on purpose or as a trojan. In the context of this discussion, it has to be discussed as a trojan, which is something AV software should take care of.
I was replying to the topic of OS X not needing antivirus software. You can't arbitrarily limit the topics I can discuss, especially if those topics address a comment someone has made. For example, I can't tell you not to bring up OS/2 because this is a story about Android.
OS X offers no particular protection against trojans
No one said it it. It was only *you* who are claiming that that's what people have said here.
and does in fact have a real problem with it (use google for OS X + botnet).
That's an absolute lie. Mac OS X does not have a "real problem with trojans". There are Mac OS X trojans, but they aren't a problem. They are a rarity.
So, to recapitulate: OS X is nothing special.
Please quote where I said it was, in terms of being somehow immune or otherwise significantly resistant, technologically, to spyware, trojans or rootkits. All that I said is that Mac OS X doesn't need antivirus software because it doesn't really have a malware (of any type) problem. Just because there exist a few trojans does not mean that it's a problem. People still die the bubonic plague, but it's not something any rational person would classify as a problem.
For every "unlocked" phone that allows you to install unsigned software, yes. That's the price you pay for unlocked hardware. There are exceptions to the rule, (OS X) but they are very few and far between.
How exactly is OS X an exception?
Due to the notably disproportionate lack of spyware on the Mac.
By that logic, if I leave my front door open year round yet don't get burgled, my home must be burglar proof!
Please explain how your analogy is correct. Specifically, quote where I said Mac OS X is spyware-proof (or anything else that validates your analogy).
Oh wait, maybe first you could simply quote the part you left out where I said the exact opposite! Here, let me save you the trouble:
If you think OS X has effective protection against trojans and root kits, you're deluding yourself.
It's strange that people seem to always bring this up when no one is making the claim that is supposedly being debunked.
Doesn't really help your case, I can see why you left it out. Not terribly honest on your behalf, however.
You made the claim that...
No I didn't. That was someone else. I made the claim that v1 didn't make the claim that you were debunking.
And now you try to make the argument that OS X has little need for anti-virus software due to there being a disproportionate(?) lack of spyware for the platform. Spyware != virus, and a lack of spyware is hardly unique for OS X either.
I claimed that Mac OS X was uniquely lacking spyware, I said it was disproportionate in the problem it has with spyware. You don't get to make points by attacking things people aren't saying.
As for virus vs spyware, I never said there wasn't a difference. I was agreeing with the reason Mac OS X doesn't need antivirus is that there is very little problem with spyware. You may not know this, but antivirus software also targets spyware (maybe you should send them feedback telling them that "virus != spyware", and see how they take it). I was actually being kind to your point, however, while there is a small amount of spyware for the Mac, there are zero viruses.
At any rate, this story has nothing to do with spyware.
That's not true. The story talks about collecting personal data from the phone. But that doesn't even come into play as what I was replying to was what you said, and you were replying to someone who was talking about antivirus and malware. As far as both the thread goes, and as the story itself goes, I was entirely on topic.
Mac OS X already has enough of a trojan problem that Mac OS X trojans have been used to create botnets
Please quote where I or the OP said otherwise. As for myself, I said that it isn't much of a problem, and it isn't. I don't know of an actual botnet. Maybe there has been one (I'm suspicious of your claim), but as things currently stand, all forms of malware, whichever category you wish to limit yourself to, or all combined, Mac OS X does not have a problem with them. There are a few examples of spyware, and a Trojan or two, etc., but that's about it.
You fanboys really are a confused and delusional bunch.
What's confused and delusional is what you seem to think anyone here is saying. You keep replying with straw men. When someone says you don't need antivirus on the Mac, that doesn't mean they said, "OS X has effective protection against trojans and root kits".
Try responding to what people have actually said next time.
How exactly is OS X an exception?
Due to the notably disproportionate lack of spyware on the Mac.
If you think OS X has effective protection against trojans and root kits, you're deluding yourself.
It's strange that people seem to always bring this up when no one is making the claim that is supposedly being debunked.
The wording on it is unclear, but it sounds like you have to be an existing user of the data plan to have it grandfathered in.:
I don't think it was unclear. If you are already on the unlimited plan, you can stay with it.
If that's the case, it is indeed bait-and-switch. You were supposed to be able to go on or off of it month-to-month, so you shouldn't have to currently have the $29.99 unlimited plan in order to have it as an option.
iPad is still month-to-month, no contract. Bait and switch doesn't mean you don't change your prices and plans. I agree that the timing is shitty, but this is in no way something that only the tech industry can get away with, and is not an example of changing the terms of a contract out from under you.
You got +5 Interesting, but are entirely off topic. AT&T are changing the plans they offer, existing customers don't lose their current plans.
...yet.
They could. That's how the industry works. I think that's what GP was talking about.
Those on contracts can't have their rates changed, those out of contracts can. How is that out of the ordinary?