Thanks for the correction. I didn't know the N900 lacked ICE, although it could arguably squeak by without SRTP. I'm hoping Apple gets some folks like Cisco to sign onto this so that home users can just rely on their local firewall to handle the setup/config.
I realize you're probably trolling, but I'll answer anyway. FaceTime is a bit more than 'just SIP'. SIP just gets the session started. This will be an open sourcing of the core technology stack required to use FaceTime.
H.264 and AAC, its ISO/MPEG video and audio codecs (just like iChat).
SIP (Session Initiation Protocol), the open IETF signaling protocol for VoIP used by iChat AV.
STUN (Session Traversal Utilities for NAT), an IETF standard for dealing with lots of different kinds of NAT.
TURN (Traversal Using Relay NAT), an IETF standard for allowing a client behind NAT to receive incoming requests like a server.
ICE (Interactive Connectivity Establishment) an IETF standard which helps set up connections through NAT firewalls.
RTP (Real-time Transport Protocol), an iETF standard for delivering media streams in VoIP.
SRTP (Secure RTP) an IETF standard designed to provide encryption, message authentication and integrity for the data streams.
AAC Advanced audio coding standard. Widely used today in audio and video communications and has established interoperability.
All of the above are open standards (yes there is a difference between open standard and royalty free, but that's another discussion), but the framework that Apple created to bundle all of the above together (the pieces that makes it all work together), is what's being open sourced. I believe there is only one other phone on the market that even supports all of the necessary protocols (N900). It hasn't been 'done for years' in this way.
Skype in contrast, is proprietary, although they may have been spooked into releasing some API's into their framework as they see a posible threat here to their video chat throne. Apple has the muscle to get hardware vendor buy-in from folks like Cisco. Video chat could take off in a whole new way, and I'm not referring to business client. Sure folks have had the capability to use it on their phones for some years, but few do, and trends show the number is actually shrinking, probably due to poor interoperability. Hopefully Apple has the muscle to standardize all of these technologies into a functional (read: easy to use) bundle that all of the phone manufacturers will jump onto.
I suspect this is related somehow to FaceTime, which Apple also open sourced. Skype could potentially face loosing the market, much like Adobe is with Flash vs. HTML5.
Then it might be more useful, and secure, to note in the warning that they cannot initiate a call without user action. I got the gist from the article that the sandboxing isn't that specific, meaning once you grant access, it's all or nothing.
Specifically, once you grant an App the ability to dial a number, can it do so without user intervention? Will it prompt after future updates?
It seems like an important security feature. The same with audio recording, accessing personal information, etc. All it would take would be an unscrupulous developer who had a seemingly innocent app, who later pushes out updates that allow this access behind the scenes, or one who doesn't even bother with an app update to hide what their doing, much like the banking software that was used to store users banking credentials.
Odd. There isn't a single mention of DRM in the entire article. The summary is just an alarmist piece. It's only natural that features from one end up in the other, just as features from Windows end up in Mobile, and I would expect features from Mobile will end up in Windows if they are useful in a desktop environment.
iOS4 received feature parity with OS X (some 23 features from OS X ported to iOS in addition to IPV6 and DNS functionality). The article fails to mention any of this. It only talks about iOS4 influence on the desktop while ignoring the return path.
As a Mac user. I'm not concerned in the slightest.
Directly call phone numbers? Why does the maps app need access to the phone state and identity? Why would it it need to modify SD Card contents (caching?) Why would it need to record audio?
If these are typical of prompts seen by an everyday computer user, they wouldn't understand the implications, and they would click 'ok'. We see this every day in computing.
Services that cost you money: directly call phone numbers
How specific is the warning? Does it state that the app may be able to dial without the users permission, or send text messages without their permission, or is it a more generic "may access private data" type prompt?
It's amazing to me that Android users are so willing to trust total strangers in defense of their chosen platform. Such information, if published about Microsoft or Apple would have everyone lighting their torches, open source or not. I guarantee you that the vast bulk of app users do not scan every line of code in these apps for malware. Regular users wouldn't even know how.
No different than the above being marked troll. It is certainly not 'trolling' under any definition. There have been no mass exploits for Apple since they moved to Intel unless someone would be kind enough to point one out? The modding has nothing to do with the content in the post, but rather the fact that someone dared to defend Apple. Anymore it's become a total waste of time to even read Apple threads. They are full of vitriol and hate. Not from the expected Apple fans, but from the anti-Apple (droid?) crowd.
Perhaps because Apple is patching these before they are exploited in the wild, rather than after? TIf the phone OS follows the same pattern as the desktop updates, they will continue to support the 3.x branch for quite a few years with security patches just as Apple continues to support Leopard as well as Snow Leopard. There is absolutely nothing preventing Apple from pushing the same patches to the 3.x line. It's also not a sure thing that these patched vulnerabilities that have been patched in 4.0 exist in 3.0. No where in the article does it claim as much. It simply hints that they might exist in both (and I agree it's likely that some do).
I also found the comments about rules and filtering a bit odd, considering the iPhone uses IMAP for mail accounts if it's available. The filtering, and rules would be handled server side, not on the client software.
The law as quoted above isn't ambiguous. It is in fact very clear:
"In addition to legislation in many of the fifty states, Title III governs these areas as well. It prohibits any person from intentionally using or disclosing information knowingly intercepted by electronic surveillance, without the consent of the interested parties. The intent element may be satisfied if the person knew or had reason to know that the information intercepted or disclosed was acquired by electronic surveillance; it is not satisfied if the person inadvertently intercepted or disclosed such information."
What part of that do you find unclear? You don't think the 30 some-odd states looking to file legal action haven't considered this?
You wouldn't consider driving down the street with the intent to record these leaking broadcasts, intent? People don't broadcast their WiFi with the intent to let Google record it. They broadcast it within their home. Any leakage can't be controlled by the end user unless they put up a cage. I don't see that happening.
You do realize you described a 'public' television signal right? Private transmissions from a home are not the same as a public transmission.
The same principal applies to taking photo's of someone without their consent. If you point a video camera into someone's home, you aren't physically entering it, but you would be held liable under the law in any case. There is precedent set for the private sector, which is where this would fall:
"Private Sector Electronic surveillance is most common in two areas of the private sector: employment and domestic relations. In addition to legislation in many of the fifty states, Title III governs these areas as well. It prohibits any person from intentionally using or disclosing information knowingly intercepted by electronic surveillance, without the consent of the interested parties. The intent element may be satisfied if the person knew or had reason to know that the information intercepted or disclosed was acquired by electronic surveillance; it is not satisfied if the person inadvertently intercepted or disclosed such information."
[Source] http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Electronic+Surveillance
In this case, Google was actively scanning for this information. They didn't inadvertently 'see' it. Their entire purpose was specifically to collect it.
And yet every one of these political cartoons is available via the browser. They are not banned on the device or I wouldn't be able to find them on Google via the built in Safari browser.
Apple refuses to distribute them. There is a difference.
Apple didn't say you couldn't put sex or political cartoons on the device. It agreement says content which is 'objectionable or derogatory'. Apple isn't in the market to sell a portable porn device. They are fully within their rights to do so. If you wish to browse porn, you are also fully capable of doing so in the browser. They are also not required to publish an app with comics depicting people of color hanging from trees. They are the distributor of these apps, and they would be responsible for any backlash. They are apparently willing to accept that. You also claim' thousands of sex themed apps'. Can you cite a source for that or are you just grandstanding?
Do you question the "Disney Channel's" right to not show adult content? Have you written any complaints to Disney voicing your objection and their attempt to destroy democracy? Of course not. It is a closed system, and they control the content. This is no different. You may own the TV, but you elected to watch that channel and as such, you agree to the limitations they impose.
As far as the cartoon strip, it was later approved once they sent it up the chain. Looking at the strip that was rejected, it depicted genitals (albeit poorly), which I can understand why it would have been flagged. If the user elected to go to the web site and view it via the browser, that would take Apple out of the loop legally, and you could obviously do so if you were interested.
They did not ban all political or sexual cartoons, and you do a diservice implying such. They refuse to distribute them. You are free to access them via browser. To my knowledge, there have been 2 such apps that have been rejected. The above comic strip, and a political cartoon that 'ridiculed a public figure' in violation of the developer agreement:
"Applications must not contain any obscene, pornographic, offensive or defamatory content or materials of any kind (text, graphics, images, photographs, etc.), or other content or materials that in Apple's reasonable judgment may be found objectionable by iPhone or iPod touch users."
Yes, in my opinion, you do fit the profile of someone on an anti-apple crusade, just given your comments here. A single cartoon strip, depicting genitals was flagged for further review, and you claim that Apple is suddenly banning all political and sexual cartoons.
It is irrational to develop an app that is clearly in violation of an agreement you had to 'sign', knowing it would be rejected, and then complain when that very rejection is received.
No, all of the evidence presented is from one side (from the application developer). Apple isn't rejecting apps 'left and right'. I can think of two high profile apps and a smattering of lesser ones like the comic strip above. 95% are approved within 7 days. That's a huge number out of the 200,000 plus apps. Claiming they are rejecting apps hand and fist when that is obviously not the case speaks to what I also mentioned in the above post. The fact that the anti-apple folks have become fanatical that they would have you believe that every useful app is rejected, that you can't accomplish anything on an Apple device due to it's walled garden nature, and that the end of the world as we know it (no pun intended) is here and now, when the obvious fact is that none of these are true, the vast majority of apps are approved without issue, and those that aren't disregarded the agreement (they crash, they don't do as described, or they use private API's), all of which are believable.
Did it ever cross your mind to question these reports with a little objectivity, given that you're only hearing one side of the story?
As far as technological advances go, free market and profit would take a huge lions share for motivation. It's all very fine to claim the high ground and espouse higher morals and the need to do the 'right' thing, but I take a more pragmatic approach. These advances are strictly due to profit, market power, and consumer wants/needs, and right now, the needs of the geek market simply don't matter. I think that is the root of this anti-apple crusade. The geeks feel slighted or insulted and we see the result in 'Apple Sucks +5 Insightful' posts every day on Slashdot.
Never heard of either of these 'apps' until they hit/. I suspect that's true for the vast majority of users. Trying to re-brand the iPad as a 'tablet computer' when it is not, doesn't help your case. It was never presented as a full blown computer as it has obvious ties with the iPhone/iPod Touch line given it uses the same OS.
I agree with the poster below. Regular people just don't care. The iPhone is a solid performer and does just about anything a regular user needs. I think the oddly emotional response we see on slashdot now, and the total willingness to dismiss any objective thinking when it comes to questioning something that slams Apple simply has to do with the fact that the typical./ user feels slighted in some way that Apple simply doesn't care what the geek crowd thinks. Is it possible some of these apps didn't do as the developer described? Is it possible they crashed or used private API's? Who cares. They make apple look bad, so lets just go with Apple == Evil. Then we see pages of posts about the 'fascist' Apple who is worse than Hitler, Nero, and Napoleon, all rolled into one. A little perspective would be refreshing given those comparisons.
What's even more odd is the fact that those that are irrelevant to Apple's iX line (namely geeks), will seemingly spend hours complaining about someone who doesn't care, or require their input. I can only hope that if Linux ever spreads in a meaningful way to the desktop, that the community in general acts a bit better than the Android community has here on Slashdot. They have become yet another 'fanboi' (hate that word) cult who is just as fanatical as the worst Apple and MS fan. In some ways they are worse than the established 'fans' in the simple fact that they have had nothing to clamour about for so long, that when they finally did get a very successful (and rightfully so) product, they turned into a "I told you so" and "You had it coming" crowd that is just as ugly in it's own right. (and mods, understand that this is an observation, not some random flamebait or trolling attempt).
In the end, it all comes down to money, both to the developers who invest in the platform, and for the end users who buy it. Given the satisfaction rate the iDevices have, and that over a billion has been paid out to the developer community, it would seem to be profitable for most folks, it works, and it helped to spawn the Android market. Something as an iPhone user, I'm actually grateful for, as it forces Apple to think in new ways, adapt to compete, and not be such tight asses.
I've found that even clicking on a link while trying to scroll, if you move the web page any substantial amount (say more than 20 pixels or so), it will simply ignore the link and scroll the page instead which is a good solution on a touch interface.
Yes, but seeing these phases from various stars will eventually give them the picture they need. They don't need to see the entire life cycle of a single star. As long as they can view the highlights, and piece them together in the proper order, it's almost as good as watching it reel to reel so to speak considering the long time span for the event and the fact that our span is so relatively short.
You assume she knew the risks, when it's very possible the scientists themselves didn't understand all of the risks. They also may not have disclosed the known risks.
I find myself contrasting the response Microsoft would get if they left something similar on Windows Mobile, and the response Android gets. Although there are a few folks in here with a bit more pessimism, the bulk seem to be willing to assume it's just a 'simple mistake'.
Slashdot Mirror
True. I meant open standards, not open source.
Thanks for the correction. I didn't know the N900 lacked ICE, although it could arguably squeak by without SRTP. I'm hoping Apple gets some folks like Cisco to sign onto this so that home users can just rely on their local firewall to handle the setup/config.
I realize you're probably trolling, but I'll answer anyway. FaceTime is a bit more than 'just SIP'. SIP just gets the session started. This will be an open sourcing of the core technology stack required to use FaceTime.
All of the above are open standards (yes there is a difference between open standard and royalty free, but that's another discussion), but the framework that Apple created to bundle all of the above together (the pieces that makes it all work together), is what's being open sourced. I believe there is only one other phone on the market that even supports all of the necessary protocols (N900). It hasn't been 'done for years' in this way.
Skype in contrast, is proprietary, although they may have been spooked into releasing some API's into their framework as they see a posible threat here to their video chat throne. Apple has the muscle to get hardware vendor buy-in from folks like Cisco. Video chat could take off in a whole new way, and I'm not referring to business client. Sure folks have had the capability to use it on their phones for some years, but few do, and trends show the number is actually shrinking, probably due to poor interoperability. Hopefully Apple has the muscle to standardize all of these technologies into a functional (read: easy to use) bundle that all of the phone manufacturers will jump onto.
I suspect this is related somehow to FaceTime, which Apple also open sourced. Skype could potentially face loosing the market, much like Adobe is with Flash vs. HTML5.
Then it might be more useful, and secure, to note in the warning that they cannot initiate a call without user action. I got the gist from the article that the sandboxing isn't that specific, meaning once you grant access, it's all or nothing.
Specifically, once you grant an App the ability to dial a number, can it do so without user intervention? Will it prompt after future updates?
It seems like an important security feature. The same with audio recording, accessing personal information, etc. All it would take would be an unscrupulous developer who had a seemingly innocent app, who later pushes out updates that allow this access behind the scenes, or one who doesn't even bother with an app update to hide what their doing, much like the banking software that was used to store users banking credentials.
http://www.sophos.com/blogs/gc/g/2010/01/11/banking-malware-android-marketplace/
Odd. There isn't a single mention of DRM in the entire article. The summary is just an alarmist piece. It's only natural that features from one end up in the other, just as features from Windows end up in Mobile, and I would expect features from Mobile will end up in Windows if they are useful in a desktop environment.
iOS4 received feature parity with OS X (some 23 features from OS X ported to iOS in addition to IPV6 and DNS functionality). The article fails to mention any of this. It only talks about iOS4 influence on the desktop while ignoring the return path.
As a Mac user. I'm not concerned in the slightest.
Some of these seem alarming to me:
Directly call phone numbers?
Why does the maps app need access to the phone state and identity?
Why would it it need to modify SD Card contents (caching?)
Why would it need to record audio?
If these are typical of prompts seen by an everyday computer user, they wouldn't understand the implications, and they would click 'ok'. We see this every day in computing.
How specific is the warning? Does it state that the app may be able to dial without the users permission, or send text messages without their permission, or is it a more generic "may access private data" type prompt?
It's amazing to me that Android users are so willing to trust total strangers in defense of their chosen platform. Such information, if published about Microsoft or Apple would have everyone lighting their torches, open source or not. I guarantee you that the vast bulk of app users do not scan every line of code in these apps for malware. Regular users wouldn't even know how.
No different than the above being marked troll. It is certainly not 'trolling' under any definition. There have been no mass exploits for Apple since they moved to Intel unless someone would be kind enough to point one out? The modding has nothing to do with the content in the post, but rather the fact that someone dared to defend Apple. Anymore it's become a total waste of time to even read Apple threads. They are full of vitriol and hate. Not from the expected Apple fans, but from the anti-Apple (droid?) crowd.
Perhaps because Apple is patching these before they are exploited in the wild, rather than after? TIf the phone OS follows the same pattern as the desktop updates, they will continue to support the 3.x branch for quite a few years with security patches just as Apple continues to support Leopard as well as Snow Leopard. There is absolutely nothing preventing Apple from pushing the same patches to the 3.x line. It's also not a sure thing that these patched vulnerabilities that have been patched in 4.0 exist in 3.0. No where in the article does it claim as much. It simply hints that they might exist in both (and I agree it's likely that some do).
I also found the comments about rules and filtering a bit odd, considering the iPhone uses IMAP for mail accounts if it's available. The filtering, and rules would be handled server side, not on the client software.
How about Adobe not supporting non-obsolete computer systems like AMD 64?
Obviously they did intend to use it if they are analyzing the data. The very fact that they found they had collected too much information shows that.
The law as quoted above isn't ambiguous. It is in fact very clear:
What part of that do you find unclear? You don't think the 30 some-odd states looking to file legal action haven't considered this?
You wouldn't consider driving down the street with the intent to record these leaking broadcasts, intent? People don't broadcast their WiFi with the intent to let Google record it. They broadcast it within their home. Any leakage can't be controlled by the end user unless they put up a cage. I don't see that happening.
You do realize you described a 'public' television signal right? Private transmissions from a home are not the same as a public transmission.
The same principal applies to taking photo's of someone without their consent. If you point a video camera into someone's home, you aren't physically entering it, but you would be held liable under the law in any case. There is precedent set for the private sector, which is where this would fall: "Private Sector Electronic surveillance is most common in two areas of the private sector: employment and domestic relations. In addition to legislation in many of the fifty states, Title III governs these areas as well. It prohibits any person from intentionally using or disclosing information knowingly intercepted by electronic surveillance, without the consent of the interested parties. The intent element may be satisfied if the person knew or had reason to know that the information intercepted or disclosed was acquired by electronic surveillance; it is not satisfied if the person inadvertently intercepted or disclosed such information." [Source] http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Electronic+Surveillance In this case, Google was actively scanning for this information. They didn't inadvertently 'see' it. Their entire purpose was specifically to collect it.
And yet every one of these political cartoons is available via the browser. They are not banned on the device or I wouldn't be able to find them on Google via the built in Safari browser.
Apple refuses to distribute them. There is a difference.
Open iTunes, go to the App Store, and search for "political cartoons". I see a wide variety available.
You can also just browse to the site of interest as well.
Apple didn't say you couldn't put sex or political cartoons on the device. It agreement says content which is 'objectionable or derogatory'. Apple isn't in the market to sell a portable porn device. They are fully within their rights to do so. If you wish to browse porn, you are also fully capable of doing so in the browser. They are also not required to publish an app with comics depicting people of color hanging from trees. They are the distributor of these apps, and they would be responsible for any backlash. They are apparently willing to accept that. You also claim' thousands of sex themed apps'. Can you cite a source for that or are you just grandstanding?
Do you question the "Disney Channel's" right to not show adult content? Have you written any complaints to Disney voicing your objection and their attempt to destroy democracy? Of course not. It is a closed system, and they control the content. This is no different. You may own the TV, but you elected to watch that channel and as such, you agree to the limitations they impose.
As far as the cartoon strip, it was later approved once they sent it up the chain. Looking at the strip that was rejected, it depicted genitals (albeit poorly), which I can understand why it would have been flagged. If the user elected to go to the web site and view it via the browser, that would take Apple out of the loop legally, and you could obviously do so if you were interested.
They did not ban all political or sexual cartoons, and you do a diservice implying such. They refuse to distribute them. You are free to access them via browser. To my knowledge, there have been 2 such apps that have been rejected. The above comic strip, and a political cartoon that 'ridiculed a public figure' in violation of the developer agreement:
"Applications must not contain any obscene, pornographic, offensive or defamatory content or materials of any kind (text, graphics, images, photographs, etc.), or other content or materials that in Apple's reasonable judgment may be found objectionable by iPhone or iPod touch users."
Yes, in my opinion, you do fit the profile of someone on an anti-apple crusade, just given your comments here. A single cartoon strip, depicting genitals was flagged for further review, and you claim that Apple is suddenly banning all political and sexual cartoons.
It is irrational to develop an app that is clearly in violation of an agreement you had to 'sign', knowing it would be rejected, and then complain when that very rejection is received.
Who is in need of a little more objectivity here?
No, all of the evidence presented is from one side (from the application developer). Apple isn't rejecting apps 'left and right'. I can think of two high profile apps and a smattering of lesser ones like the comic strip above. 95% are approved within 7 days. That's a huge number out of the 200,000 plus apps. Claiming they are rejecting apps hand and fist when that is obviously not the case speaks to what I also mentioned in the above post. The fact that the anti-apple folks have become fanatical that they would have you believe that every useful app is rejected, that you can't accomplish anything on an Apple device due to it's walled garden nature, and that the end of the world as we know it (no pun intended) is here and now, when the obvious fact is that none of these are true, the vast majority of apps are approved without issue, and those that aren't disregarded the agreement (they crash, they don't do as described, or they use private API's), all of which are believable.
Did it ever cross your mind to question these reports with a little objectivity, given that you're only hearing one side of the story?
As far as technological advances go, free market and profit would take a huge lions share for motivation. It's all very fine to claim the high ground and espouse higher morals and the need to do the 'right' thing, but I take a more pragmatic approach. These advances are strictly due to profit, market power, and consumer wants/needs, and right now, the needs of the geek market simply don't matter. I think that is the root of this anti-apple crusade. The geeks feel slighted or insulted and we see the result in 'Apple Sucks +5 Insightful' posts every day on Slashdot.
Apple fails to notice. No film at 11...
Never heard of either of these 'apps' until they hit /. I suspect that's true for the vast majority of users. Trying to re-brand the iPad as a 'tablet computer' when it is not, doesn't help your case. It was never presented as a full blown computer as it has obvious ties with the iPhone/iPod Touch line given it uses the same OS.
I agree with the poster below. Regular people just don't care. The iPhone is a solid performer and does just about anything a regular user needs. I think the oddly emotional response we see on slashdot now, and the total willingness to dismiss any objective thinking when it comes to questioning something that slams Apple simply has to do with the fact that the typical ./ user feels slighted in some way that Apple simply doesn't care what the geek crowd thinks. Is it possible some of these apps didn't do as the developer described? Is it possible they crashed or used private API's? Who cares. They make apple look bad, so lets just go with Apple == Evil. Then we see pages of posts about the 'fascist' Apple who is worse than Hitler, Nero, and Napoleon, all rolled into one. A little perspective would be refreshing given those comparisons.
What's even more odd is the fact that those that are irrelevant to Apple's iX line (namely geeks), will seemingly spend hours complaining about someone who doesn't care, or require their input. I can only hope that if Linux ever spreads in a meaningful way to the desktop, that the community in general acts a bit better than the Android community has here on Slashdot. They have become yet another 'fanboi' (hate that word) cult who is just as fanatical as the worst Apple and MS fan. In some ways they are worse than the established 'fans' in the simple fact that they have had nothing to clamour about for so long, that when they finally did get a very successful (and rightfully so) product, they turned into a "I told you so" and "You had it coming" crowd that is just as ugly in it's own right. (and mods, understand that this is an observation, not some random flamebait or trolling attempt).
In the end, it all comes down to money, both to the developers who invest in the platform, and for the end users who buy it. Given the satisfaction rate the iDevices have, and that over a billion has been paid out to the developer community, it would seem to be profitable for most folks, it works, and it helped to spawn the Android market. Something as an iPhone user, I'm actually grateful for, as it forces Apple to think in new ways, adapt to compete, and not be such tight asses.
I've found that even clicking on a link while trying to scroll, if you move the web page any substantial amount (say more than 20 pixels or so), it will simply ignore the link and scroll the page instead which is a good solution on a touch interface.
Yes, but seeing these phases from various stars will eventually give them the picture they need. They don't need to see the entire life cycle of a single star. As long as they can view the highlights, and piece them together in the proper order, it's almost as good as watching it reel to reel so to speak considering the long time span for the event and the fact that our span is so relatively short.
You assume she knew the risks, when it's very possible the scientists themselves didn't understand all of the risks. They also may not have disclosed the known risks.
I find myself contrasting the response Microsoft would get if they left something similar on Windows Mobile, and the response Android gets. Although there are a few folks in here with a bit more pessimism, the bulk seem to be willing to assume it's just a 'simple mistake'.