The point of the article is to try to embarrass Apple into releasing something newer. This is a long time for them without a refresh, and they appear to be mostly abandoning the market. Historically, they always keep the price point more or less the same, but come out with new models to fit those prices from time to time. 4 years is a long time, even for them.
I currently have a client who wants a new Macbook Pro - not because they need more power, but because of a specific firmware issue that they want to get away from. There's nothing I can offer them, because buying a "new" one will be the same laptop.
I would definitely want to buy a replacement, but I don't feel a need to upgrade
And yet you'd be paying the same price for the same laptop, despite the costs for the underlying hardware decreasing over the last 4 years. The problem isn't that the computer isn't good enough. It's that it's the same price 4 years later.
They're overpriced on day one, and every Apple device has its own flaws, but the hardware is still a part of the difference in that cost. How many laptops have aluminum cases? And on the desktop side, that's mostly based on the cost of the form factor. Using almost all laptop parts and a large, high-DPI IPS screen is expensive - there are few PC equivalents. Most of those are nearly as expensive as the Mac.
True, you'll get the most bang for buck on a desktop PC with a separate low-dpi monitor. The large case and cheaper screen is a large part of the cost-savings. You could argue all day whether the average user needs the higher specs, but they are present and they do cost more.
As for the OS, it's a fairly decent BSD-based OS, though with its own graphics and audio subsystems and a disk indexing service that sometimes has serious issues.
At the prices they're charging for half-obsolete software, there's no justification. It doesn't matter that it's "good enough" because it's not "good enough for the price" - not even compared to their normal inflation of costs their brand carries.
Did you also go around and force businesses to install landlines? Land lines have been available for about 100 years, so it would have been criminal for a business not to have one publicly available for emergencies, right?
No. This is only about the intention to block emergency calls falling under several state laws. I'm not personally involved. At all. You seem to think this is so personal.
Under this law, if an abusive boyfriend physically restrains you and prevents you from making the call, that counts as interference. The call doesn't already have to be taking place for it to count as interference under these state laws.
By which I mean it might be useful for Olympics. Otherwise, this is just Japan being Japan. If they hit and pass the Nyquist limit for vision they might eventually find something else to do. An 8K screen is just a byproduct of having flawless tiny 2K phone screens at a larger scale. Making use of manufacturing you already have. It might be more useful for virtual wallpaper than broadcast outside the Olympics arenae.
I imagine people could be standing up close in a public viewing area - I am imagining an outdoor free-standing screen along some large paved area, not some movie theater setup. With as much as is going on on-screen, there could be a lot to see just looking up-close at the periphery.
If "making an effort" means I used foil backed sheeting on my walls, a tin roof, metalized glass for windows and metal doors (all common building materials) because I wanted the energy efficiency and durability it affords me, how are you going to bring me up on charges even if my real reason is to block my customer's cell service while they are inside my place of business? You going to forbid the use of materials or structures that block cell service now?
Same as most laws, you actually would have to prove intent in court to have it enforced against you. That may fail in most cases, unless you publicly announce to the media your intent (as in a case like this).
The other common-sense reading is that the employee was only authorized to access the device to do things that complied with company policy, and that her authorization to accessed it was implicitly suspended during the time she was violating company policy.
While that may be a common-sense reading, it's a horrible precedent to set. Especially when it's not a company-employee relationship but rather manufacturer-customer. The DMCA is bad enough without the CFAA being shoehorned onto every crime too.
It's about time someone set the right precedent. Now there's finally some good case law for every count of "crime...but on a computer" to NOT count as a violation of CFAA.
Let me get this straight: Your position is that every person who builds a space for public use must make sure that wireless calls to emergency services work?
No. If you build a building and it just happens to block signal, fine. If you build a Faraday cage with intent, that's by all accounts different.
unless somebody has made an effort to propagate cell signals into the shaft for you.
And yet nobody made an effort to block the signals either. Not the same. The FCC has nothing to say about it anyway. It's all about whether it is decided to be "interfering with an emergency call" in court under one of the state laws.
Slashdot Mirror
The point of the article is to try to embarrass Apple into releasing something newer. This is a long time for them without a refresh, and they appear to be mostly abandoning the market. Historically, they always keep the price point more or less the same, but come out with new models to fit those prices from time to time. 4 years is a long time, even for them.
I currently have a client who wants a new Macbook Pro - not because they need more power, but because of a specific firmware issue that they want to get away from. There's nothing I can offer them, because buying a "new" one will be the same laptop.
I'm only talking about when those products were new.
They're 4 years old at the same price now. That' a whole new problem.
I would definitely want to buy a replacement, but I don't feel a need to upgrade
And yet you'd be paying the same price for the same laptop, despite the costs for the underlying hardware decreasing over the last 4 years. The problem isn't that the computer isn't good enough. It's that it's the same price 4 years later.
Considering it's a desktop, that's a little strange. Though it's true they have zero battery life.
They're overpriced on day one, and every Apple device has its own flaws, but the hardware is still a part of the difference in that cost. How many laptops have aluminum cases? And on the desktop side, that's mostly based on the cost of the form factor. Using almost all laptop parts and a large, high-DPI IPS screen is expensive - there are few PC equivalents. Most of those are nearly as expensive as the Mac.
True, you'll get the most bang for buck on a desktop PC with a separate low-dpi monitor. The large case and cheaper screen is a large part of the cost-savings. You could argue all day whether the average user needs the higher specs, but they are present and they do cost more.
As for the OS, it's a fairly decent BSD-based OS, though with its own graphics and audio subsystems and a disk indexing service that sometimes has serious issues.
Part of that is because Clover lets you run OS X on standard PC hardware. Pretty well, I might add - it's on my daily driver PC.
At the prices they're charging for half-obsolete software, there's no justification. It doesn't matter that it's "good enough" because it's not "good enough for the price" - not even compared to their normal inflation of costs their brand carries.
the 4 year old model referenced is the base model, that indeed does use the same parts
Yeah, and it's still the SAME PRICE! There's no excuse for that.
Did you also go around and force businesses to install landlines? Land lines have been available for about 100 years, so it would have been criminal for a business not to have one publicly available for emergencies, right?
No. This is only about the intention to block emergency calls falling under several state laws. I'm not personally involved. At all. You seem to think this is so personal.
Under this law, if an abusive boyfriend physically restrains you and prevents you from making the call, that counts as interference. The call doesn't already have to be taking place for it to count as interference under these state laws.
By which I mean it might be useful for Olympics. Otherwise, this is just Japan being Japan. If they hit and pass the Nyquist limit for vision they might eventually find something else to do. An 8K screen is just a byproduct of having flawless tiny 2K phone screens at a larger scale. Making use of manufacturing you already have. It might be more useful for virtual wallpaper than broadcast outside the Olympics arenae.
I imagine people could be standing up close in a public viewing area - I am imagining an outdoor free-standing screen along some large paved area, not some movie theater setup. With as much as is going on on-screen, there could be a lot to see just looking up-close at the periphery.
Wait...so you're saying they would sue themselves for blocking their own emergency calls?
If "making an effort" means I used foil backed sheeting on my walls, a tin roof, metalized glass for windows and metal doors (all common building materials) because I wanted the energy efficiency and durability it affords me, how are you going to bring me up on charges even if my real reason is to block my customer's cell service while they are inside my place of business? You going to forbid the use of materials or structures that block cell service now?
Same as most laws, you actually would have to prove intent in court to have it enforced against you. That may fail in most cases, unless you publicly announce to the media your intent (as in a case like this).
I never said it was an open and shut case.
FTA:
For now, consumer reception equipment isn't available, so NHK has set up several public viewing areas at broadcasting stations across the country.
If this was a big public outdoor screen, it could have merit.
But when you look at how bad 1080p looks on most cable or satellite today, you would at least hopefully get more than 0.5Mbps of data at 8K.
The other common-sense reading is that the employee was only authorized to access the device to do things that complied with company policy, and that her authorization to accessed it was implicitly suspended during the time she was violating company policy.
While that may be a common-sense reading, it's a horrible precedent to set. Especially when it's not a company-employee relationship but rather manufacturer-customer. The DMCA is bad enough without the CFAA being shoehorned onto every crime too.
It's about time someone set the right precedent. Now there's finally some good case law for every count of "crime...but on a computer" to NOT count as a violation of CFAA.
112 even works in the US on a cell phone.
Passive blocking isn't illegal under the FCC. I never said that it was. You're arguing against a straw man.
Let me get this straight: Your position is that every person who builds a space for public use must make sure that wireless calls to emergency services work?
No. If you build a building and it just happens to block signal, fine. If you build a Faraday cage with intent, that's by all accounts different.
unless somebody has made an effort to propagate cell signals into the shaft for you.
And yet nobody made an effort to block the signals either. Not the same. The FCC has nothing to say about it anyway. It's all about whether it is decided to be "interfering with an emergency call" in court under one of the state laws.
no "work" is being done
Installing them is work. It may be passive in the eyes of the FCC, but that's different.
Standing in the middle of the highway is illegal - but it's passive all the same.
Why would you even go to a place intended for socializing if all you're going to do is stare at your phone? You're not welcome with that shit.
The two aren't mutually exclusive. Did you know it's possible to have a phone with you and still not use it? Amazing!
There are plenty of situations where payphones would be either inaccessible or unsafe in an emergency.
Just because there's an alternative doesn't make it non-interfering.
If there's no signal, fine. But if you're actually doing work to block the signal, then it's on you.
Because they can't step outside?
A lot of emergencies fit this case - and not only hostage situations. Otherwise, it probably wouldn't be an emergency.