I'm sure you are aware of this but thought it needed repeating. The apps being rejected are only those that do not make use of publicly available information regarding DUI checkpoints. Just wanted to point that out. You didn't specifically say mention this policy one way or another so I thought I would. Just wanted to make sure folks who are too lazy to RTFA knew this as well.
From TFA:
Apps which contain DUI checkpoints that are not published by law enforcement agencies, or encourage and enable drunk driving, will be rejected.
I'm not sure why the sync method applies to security so I'll pass that one by. As to updates themselves, they aren't slow to come in most cases, they simply don't come at all. Unfortunately, hacks to the OS (which is what the article is about) are the very piece that doesn't get updated on various handsets using Android.
The argument about 'not on the market' is invalid as well, since there is only the curated App Store for Apple, whereas on an android phone, one need only uncheck a box, and that happens a bit too often given major vendors like Amazon require it.
Also keep in mind that Apple scans for use of non-approved API's which while not a huge benefit, it does help to reduce the change of low level hacking through unsupported custom API's.
I find it a bit odd that the Android folks are claiming a 'jailbreak' is a major security flaw, while ignoring the fact that rooting an android phone is the same thing. I have little worries about any jailbreak that requires physical access to the phone. If it gets to that point, you've already lost your data. I'm more interested in remote hacks like the PDF exploit.
I will say that Apple quickly patches it's vulnerabilities, and it doesn't suffer from the issue with Android phones where the handsets are at the mercy of the handset manufacturer to release a patch that will never be released. Most Android phones don't get updates. A lucky few get a few point releases, but most are left out to dry. Apple has a better support history for it's legacy devices. It's dropped two generations: 2G in 2007 and 3G in 2008. 3+ years is not a bad record, especially relating to phone software updates.
As to iOS being more secure, all I can do is look at actual evidence to date. There have been remote hacks (the PDF jailbreak noted above), and a few 'malicious' apps (I use the term broadly here) like the one that allowed tethering, but most of the 'malware' for iPhone has been of the sort where it scans data like your contacts. I'm made more aware of apps of the Android variety that randomly dial 900 numbers, key loggers, malware that gains root access, etc. Given what's been reported right here on slashdot, the malware for iPhone is either dangerous but quickly patched, or relatively harmless and limited in scope, while the Android malware tends to be more dangerous to the end user due to it's nature, or the scope of the hack.
If I go this route, I wont' have too much problem. I use HE-AAC at 80KBPS at a substantial size savings and the quality is more than acceptable for my needs.
From what I saw and read, purchased music, apps, and books don't count against the 5GB. If you have ripped content and non-iTunes purchases, those would count towards it unless you opt for the iTunes iCould for $24 a month and that is limited by the number of songs (20,000 from what I've read), not the size of the songs. In that case, the only content that would count towards your 5 GB is if it's not in Apple's music library and they have millions of tracks in that library.
Well the live stream is online, but you can't forward fast through it at all, meaning you have to sit through 45 minutes. I will shit a brick if they forgo physical media.
Hopefully someone posts a proper stream soon with proper controls.
The bonus there being that you don't need to 'upload' your purchased content. If the service matches your ripped content, you can just download it to other devices and skip the upload.
Actually no it didn't. You can install Snow Leopard without any need to 'prove' you have 10.5 or some previous install of OS X. The only check an OS X installer does is to verify it's genuine Apple hardware.
Apple stated the upgrade would be available via the App Store. They did not state it would not be available in a physical media option. Cutting off hundreds of thousands or millions of pre 10.6 users doesn't make good business sense, nor does snubbing users with slow internet connections. Pre-orders for the physical disk have already shown up on various sites, including a German Amazon site.
It won't, it requires Snow Leopard first, just as Snow Leopard's $29 install required Leopard first.
So would the millions of pre 10.6 OS X users since the App store isn't available prior to that. I have zero doubt that physical media will be available for purchase.
It has already been reported that the App Store is an preferred option for upgrading, but I have no doubt you will be able to purchase it as well. Without a physical media option, it would be difficult to do system work (repairs, installs, etc) when you lack an internet connection.
Distribution of Lion through the Mac App Store for all users is not too surprising considering it’s the primary method for developers to download and install the Developer Preview releases. This is not to say that a corresponding DVD installer will not be released alongside the digital distribution. Last month, a placeholder for a Lion installation DVD showed up on German Amazon, and there continues to be a possibility that Lion will also appear on USB installer keys for MacBook Air and Mac Mini Server users.
They already ship the Macbook Air installer on a thumb drive. I see no reason why that would change for users with caps on their internet plan, or for people who simply don't want to download it.
That's the problem with software patents. It doesn't matter what 'alternatives' they use. If they do basically the same thing, Lodsys can still sue for infringement.
The developers are using prescribed, Apple-provided APIs and are barred by Apple from implementing alternatives.
I don't think they should include any virus definitions. As I already stated, it only scans for trojans, not viruses.
Also, how can a statement be true and misleading at the same time? When referring to viruses, I specifically referred to mac, not the malware scanner in OS X. If you look at your post directly after mine, you were the one who asked why a Mac would scan for Viruses. I never stated it should.
My post:
Apple has typically left virus scanning up to 3rd parties, while taking a more active role in alerting users about phishing and malware up front.
Your post immediately following:
Ummm, what viruses would it be looking for? There aren't any real, in the wild Mac viruses unless you count Mac Guard, which barely qualifies and is only delivered via trojan that happens to spawn a separate app at run time.
You then implied I stated Mac OS X was invulnerable:
Who claimed OS X will always be invulnerable? Just you, just now, in a strawman argument.
From the get go you seem to have misunderstood my posts, or implied some meaning which I never stated. Your most recent post:
While your statement is true, it is also misleading. You were specifically talking about the "Mac scanner" which is a feature only of OS X, and speaking about its lack of viruses definitions.
I never said the Mac scanner should scan for viruses, or implied that it did. Quite the contrary in my first post where I said it only scans for 3 types of Trojans and that Apple leaves Virus scanning up to 3rd parties.
Do you see why I think you've over reacted a bit? Granted the 'virus' I posted turns out to be a POC and that was my fault for not researching further, but other than that, you are the one who seems to be implying I've said things I haven't.
Actually looking a bit deeper, some do show me as owner. It appears all of the system apps are owned by System. Most apps by 3rd parties are also owned by system, but those I packaged myself into DMG files for easier backup/installation are owned by me. I suspect my use of this type of backup isn't all that common though.
I have to agree here. Although Apple has it's drawbacks in the approach they take, it is most effective for a large majority of folks who don't need 'freedom' and most likely don't even realize they don't have it. I think this would be a good opportunity for Google to step up and put a gardner in the garden to watch for 'weeds'.
If there is something that Google can do to moderate or limit this type of damage (before the fact, not after), then they should be encouraged to do so. It is not the users fault that they don't understand why a program asks to access the dialer. Most probably come from the Windows world where such prompts are common place and commonly ignored. Blaming the end user for taking an easy option is not a good answer and part of the reason Linux fails on the desktop. Programmers are always quick to condemn the stupidity of end users over questions about ease of use, not understanding that a user isn't necessarily a geek and they shouldn't need to be for day to day use of computer or a phone.
If Google isn't careful, they will turn Android into a sponge for viruses with it's 'wild west' approach. This doesn't mean they need to go all out Apple style, but even something as simple as a general scan for such malware during the submission phase would be a good start. Considering the billions in revenue these folks make off of end user ads, funding a group to at least check what permissions an app asks for and finding out why doesn't seem to be too much to ask. I suspect such a simple approach would probably catch the easiest low hanging fruit which probably also constitutes the large majority of malware on Android. No security model is secure, but they could at least take steps to have someone with a technical background review and question these apps and the permissions they request before they are published in the market place.
Users could always opt to use other markets if they don't like the Google market while a simple approach like this would be beneficial to a large majority of 'vanilla' users, ideally preventing them from hurting themselves.
No where did I claim that anyone said it was invulnerable. I said that "I" was not foolish enough to believe it will remain Virus free. You should really cut back on your caffeine as you seem to think I'm claiming that Mac's are a virus sponge when if you read my posts, nothing is farther from the truth. I also stated that there have been viruses for 'Mac', not for 'OS X', although the link I posted was OS X specific (albeit a proof of concept).
No, that was just an example (of which 4 variants of Inqtana were found). Go farther back and you'll also find reports for Mac OS Classic (ranging anywhere from 4 to 60 some odd viruses depending on your source). Contrast that to the 100,000+ that have been found for a Windows based PC over the years and the comparison takes on new meaning but it does not mean that OS X will always be invulnerable. It is typically one of the first to fall in White Hat conventions, which of course leads to quick patches to close any vulnerabilities.
Even knowing this I still don't use a virus scanner at present as I simply don't see a need. That said I am not foolish enough to believe that it will remain Virus free indefinitely.
Slashdot Mirror
Well that and it gets armies of folks to swarm on their little Podunk community to get the snail mail copy. Local money is always attractive.
I'm sure you are aware of this but thought it needed repeating. The apps being rejected are only those that do not make use of publicly available information regarding DUI checkpoints. Just wanted to point that out. You didn't specifically say mention this policy one way or another so I thought I would. Just wanted to make sure folks who are too lazy to RTFA knew this as well.
From TFA:
I'm not sure why the sync method applies to security so I'll pass that one by. As to updates themselves, they aren't slow to come in most cases, they simply don't come at all. Unfortunately, hacks to the OS (which is what the article is about) are the very piece that doesn't get updated on various handsets using Android.
The argument about 'not on the market' is invalid as well, since there is only the curated App Store for Apple, whereas on an android phone, one need only uncheck a box, and that happens a bit too often given major vendors like Amazon require it.
Also keep in mind that Apple scans for use of non-approved API's which while not a huge benefit, it does help to reduce the change of low level hacking through unsupported custom API's.
I find it a bit odd that the Android folks are claiming a 'jailbreak' is a major security flaw, while ignoring the fact that rooting an android phone is the same thing. I have little worries about any jailbreak that requires physical access to the phone. If it gets to that point, you've already lost your data. I'm more interested in remote hacks like the PDF exploit.
I will say that Apple quickly patches it's vulnerabilities, and it doesn't suffer from the issue with Android phones where the handsets are at the mercy of the handset manufacturer to release a patch that will never be released. Most Android phones don't get updates. A lucky few get a few point releases, but most are left out to dry. Apple has a better support history for it's legacy devices. It's dropped two generations: 2G in 2007 and 3G in 2008. 3+ years is not a bad record, especially relating to phone software updates.
As to iOS being more secure, all I can do is look at actual evidence to date. There have been remote hacks (the PDF jailbreak noted above), and a few 'malicious' apps (I use the term broadly here) like the one that allowed tethering, but most of the 'malware' for iPhone has been of the sort where it scans data like your contacts. I'm made more aware of apps of the Android variety that randomly dial 900 numbers, key loggers, malware that gains root access, etc. Given what's been reported right here on slashdot, the malware for iPhone is either dangerous but quickly patched, or relatively harmless and limited in scope, while the Android malware tends to be more dangerous to the end user due to it's nature, or the scope of the hack.
http://ecellphone.net/dangerous-android-malware-has-been-found/
http://androidversion.com/highly-dangerous-android-malware-found-in-market-removed.html
http://newphonesout.com/news/droiddreamlight-a-dangerous-malware-in-android-apps.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
Although it's easy to point and say iOS sucks for security, the malware being reported for both tends to tell a different story.
If I go this route, I wont' have too much problem. I use HE-AAC at 80KBPS at a substantial size savings and the quality is more than acceptable for my needs.
From what I saw and read, purchased music, apps, and books don't count against the 5GB. If you have ripped content and non-iTunes purchases, those would count towards it unless you opt for the iTunes iCould for $24 a month and that is limited by the number of songs (20,000 from what I've read), not the size of the songs. In that case, the only content that would count towards your 5 GB is if it's not in Apple's music library and they have millions of tracks in that library.
You can always just upload your content if you like. The 'matching' feature is pay to play. The iCloud basic services are free.
Well the live stream is online, but you can't forward fast through it at all, meaning you have to sit through 45 minutes. I will shit a brick if they forgo physical media.
Hopefully someone posts a proper stream soon with proper controls.
http://events.apple.com.edgesuite.net/11piubpwiqubf06/event/
The video stream is already online: http://events.apple.com.edgesuite.net/11piubpwiqubf06/event/
You do realize Silverlight is available on Mac right? As to the mobile platform, I've never found a need for it, much like flash.
http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/development_tools/silverlight.html
The bonus there being that you don't need to 'upload' your purchased content. If the service matches your ripped content, you can just download it to other devices and skip the upload.
Where did you read that Lion will enforce it? Again, no where did they state that physical media won't be made available.
Actually no it didn't. You can install Snow Leopard without any need to 'prove' you have 10.5 or some previous install of OS X. The only check an OS X installer does is to verify it's genuine Apple hardware.
Apple stated the upgrade would be available via the App Store. They did not state it would not be available in a physical media option. Cutting off hundreds of thousands or millions of pre 10.6 users doesn't make good business sense, nor does snubbing users with slow internet connections. Pre-orders for the physical disk have already shown up on various sites, including a German Amazon site.
So would the millions of pre 10.6 OS X users since the App store isn't available prior to that. I have zero doubt that physical media will be available for purchase.
It has already been reported that the App Store is an preferred option for upgrading, but I have no doubt you will be able to purchase it as well. Without a physical media option, it would be difficult to do system work (repairs, installs, etc) when you lack an internet connection.
Ref: http://osxdaily.com/2011/05/04/mac-os-x-10-7-lion-to-be-distributed-through-mac-app-store/
They already ship the Macbook Air installer on a thumb drive. I see no reason why that would change for users with caps on their internet plan, or for people who simply don't want to download it.
Here's the live blog (well not so live now) of the event. It has the essential information.
http://www.engadget.com/2011/06/06/wwdc-2011-liveblog-steve-jobs-talks-ios-5-os-x-lion-icloud-an/?sort=newest&refresh=60
Hot Fuzz reference ;)
That's the problem with software patents. It doesn't matter what 'alternatives' they use. If they do basically the same thing, Lodsys can still sue for infringement.
...The Greater Good...
I don't think they should include any virus definitions. As I already stated, it only scans for trojans, not viruses.
Also, how can a statement be true and misleading at the same time? When referring to viruses, I specifically referred to mac, not the malware scanner in OS X. If you look at your post directly after mine, you were the one who asked why a Mac would scan for Viruses. I never stated it should.
My post:
Your post immediately following:
You then implied I stated Mac OS X was invulnerable:
From the get go you seem to have misunderstood my posts, or implied some meaning which I never stated. Your most recent post:
I never said the Mac scanner should scan for viruses, or implied that it did. Quite the contrary in my first post where I said it only scans for 3 types of Trojans and that Apple leaves Virus scanning up to 3rd parties.
Do you see why I think you've over reacted a bit? Granted the 'virus' I posted turns out to be a POC and that was my fault for not researching further, but other than that, you are the one who seems to be implying I've said things I haven't.
Actually looking a bit deeper, some do show me as owner. It appears all of the system apps are owned by System. Most apps by 3rd parties are also owned by system, but those I packaged myself into DMG files for easier backup/installation are owned by me. I suspect my use of this type of backup isn't all that common though.
I don't believe so. Looking at random apps in the Applications folder, I don't own any of them. System does. Everyone else has read only access.
I have to agree here. Although Apple has it's drawbacks in the approach they take, it is most effective for a large majority of folks who don't need 'freedom' and most likely don't even realize they don't have it. I think this would be a good opportunity for Google to step up and put a gardner in the garden to watch for 'weeds'.
If there is something that Google can do to moderate or limit this type of damage (before the fact, not after), then they should be encouraged to do so. It is not the users fault that they don't understand why a program asks to access the dialer. Most probably come from the Windows world where such prompts are common place and commonly ignored. Blaming the end user for taking an easy option is not a good answer and part of the reason Linux fails on the desktop. Programmers are always quick to condemn the stupidity of end users over questions about ease of use, not understanding that a user isn't necessarily a geek and they shouldn't need to be for day to day use of computer or a phone.
If Google isn't careful, they will turn Android into a sponge for viruses with it's 'wild west' approach. This doesn't mean they need to go all out Apple style, but even something as simple as a general scan for such malware during the submission phase would be a good start. Considering the billions in revenue these folks make off of end user ads, funding a group to at least check what permissions an app asks for and finding out why doesn't seem to be too much to ask. I suspect such a simple approach would probably catch the easiest low hanging fruit which probably also constitutes the large majority of malware on Android. No security model is secure, but they could at least take steps to have someone with a technical background review and question these apps and the permissions they request before they are published in the market place.
Users could always opt to use other markets if they don't like the Google market while a simple approach like this would be beneficial to a large majority of 'vanilla' users, ideally preventing them from hurting themselves.
No where did I claim that anyone said it was invulnerable. I said that "I" was not foolish enough to believe it will remain Virus free. You should really cut back on your caffeine as you seem to think I'm claiming that Mac's are a virus sponge when if you read my posts, nothing is farther from the truth. I also stated that there have been viruses for 'Mac', not for 'OS X', although the link I posted was OS X specific (albeit a proof of concept).
Relax man.
No, that was just an example (of which 4 variants of Inqtana were found). Go farther back and you'll also find reports for Mac OS Classic (ranging anywhere from 4 to 60 some odd viruses depending on your source). Contrast that to the 100,000+ that have been found for a Windows based PC over the years and the comparison takes on new meaning but it does not mean that OS X will always be invulnerable. It is typically one of the first to fall in White Hat conventions, which of course leads to quick patches to close any vulnerabilities.
Even knowing this I still don't use a virus scanner at present as I simply don't see a need. That said I am not foolish enough to believe that it will remain Virus free indefinitely.