Oh, so when it's Amazon and not their app that sends the UDID along with the user's name in plain text it's entirely secure.
Fact 1) is, the UDID is trivially correlated to your real life identity, and it can be trivially used to track your location and movement. Fact 2) is that this article found sharing of your identity in close to 70% percent of the top iPhone apps, whereas the Android story the other day found such sharing in, what, 50% or so, two of which shared the phone number (one app on the list is designed to share phone numbers via a network server, and also exists for the iPhone, with equal risk).
The Android story is filled with fanboys like yourself pretending what's in this story could never happen on the iPhone. This story is filled with fanboys like yourself pretending it doesn't matter anyway, and that the Android story is about something completely different. "True", but only for one application.
What you're doing is fraudulent advertising of Apple's unproven security, based on nothing but corporate loyalty and wishful thinking. Hello, you just said, yesterday, that "this kind of stuff will mean an app won't get into the App Store". But Apple actually provides an API for it.
You're imagining things. I never "defended" Google for remotely uninstalling applications, and I never said Google was to be trusted. I only stated as a matter of fact that BasilBrush was wrong in both cases, which he is. If you think speaking the truth makes me a Google apologist, then perhaps you need to step out of the RDF.
I know you find it hard to read comments, but some of the apps mentioned here send your name in plain text along with the UID, making the UID into an alias for your name. Perfectly reasonable when it's done with Apple's products, of course, as the limits of the reasonable moves along with them.
Notice how you go from full attack mode to full defensive mode along with corporate loyalty. You're a pathetic excuse of a human being.
Bashing Apple has been OK for some time, but there's still a very vocal minority that goes into full denial every time Apple does something objectionable. Like most of the first comments here.
Sorry, but it has already been established in the discussion about possible privacy invasions in Android software that this can't happen on iOS. Because it simply can't happen.
The fanboy is you. BasilBrush said -- fraudulently, as is the way of you Apple fans -- that Google would never pull a malicious app. He can be wrong about both this and about Apple's oh so perfect "security screening" (this isn't even what Apple's screening is about) at the same time.
The problem with the article is that they label apps as "suspicious" when they work as intended. Bump, for instance, is an information sharing app. It's designed to share your contact info (if you choose so) with other phones. I can't imagine it isn't one of the two apps that transmit the phone number, IMSI, etc., to the app's server, as that's how it's supposed to work.
Of course, Bump is also available for the iPhone through Apple's app store.
"One of the benefits of a single app store" -- like the single Android Market, you mean? You don't know how good Apple's security screening is, so you just choose to trust them for no reason whatsoever.
iTunes isn't fast at all, and it's about as efficient as the United Nations. We're talking about a ~100MB music player app here. It consumes vast amounts of RAM and disk space, has extremely poor support for formats not officially sanctioned by Apple, and for music players not produced by Apple. For its extreme bloat, it's not very feature rich. Oh, and you have to use it if you want to use Apple's latest gizmos. There's a lot of hatred of iTunes out there, jfgi. I thought it was a Windows only thing, but many Mac users seem to agree. Another thing is that iTunes dominates the Mac platform to such a degree that no one has developed a decent mp3 player for it.
Finder: Just not as good as most of the others. Windows Explorer, Dolphin, Konqueror, possibly even Nautilus. How about doing even the simplest things? Slow, sometimes unresponsive w/spinning beach ball.
The BSD subsystem is just poorly done. There's a reason why many of its userspace utilities are replicated by package collections like Fink: the ones in OS X suck. Is python still compiled without readline support?
Hardware support: Yes, let's stick to buying overpriced crap from Apple only. Like any other cult, Apples don't get to hang with the cool guys.
Obsolescence: Now try running this years software on a five years old Mac. It's obsolete.
I'm a hater, yes, but I hate fanboys, not Apple's products. Many of their products are fine (the laptops especially; I've owned one), I just happen to be fed up with the frauds who advertise them at any opportunity. There are tons of those here on Slashdot, often hovering at +5, insightful just for saying they love Apple products. I'm fed up not with their products, but with how they're supposedly "revolutionary" while doing absolutely nothing new, and few things better.
re: market share, we were talking about Apple's supposedly extreme popularity here, which is effectively debunked by their market share. Their profits are entirely irrelevant. You should ask: who cares about their profits? Their stockholders, and the stockholders only, should be the answer. Customers taking joy from the fact that a big corporation makes a profit on them is absurd, yet you see this all the time... but only with Apple's customers. Why? Because they're fans, rooting for one corporation as if it were a hockey team. But it's a giant tech corporation, and being a supporter of one of them is simply delusional behaviour.
re: massively overpriced tech stock: the stock market is rarely right when everyone has jumped the same bandwagon.
When "experience" is touted again and again, as the sole selling point, with nothing quantifiable whatsoever to back it up (or when the little there is, is evidently bullshit), as is the case with Apple, then I take "experience" to be marketing.
Also, Apple worshipers tend to disregard everything that sucks when it comes to Apple: iTunes. Finder. The BSD subsystem. Support for non-sanctioned hardware. The fact that their computers are obsolete much faster than any competing platform (OS9 --> OS X PPC --> OS X i686 --> OS X x86_64, and fanboys have complaints with the likes of Adobe for not catching up). You could say that the user experience is utterly shit, and it would be just as true as saying it's brilliant. So, to repeat: it's marketing.
And Apple still has less than 10% of the computing desktop, less than 10% of the mobile phones, so I guess your point has been proven: Apple's brand of "superior experience" has failed.
Wrong. There's a tiny minority of loudmouths who like Apple. Even the huge success of the iPhone -- the only phone in the world, according to the media -- only has something like 10% market share.
Also, their supposedly ineffably well designed laptops have a worse malfunction rate than Asus, Toshiba and Sony, despite Apple only catering to the midrange and high end. So: no better than others, which means you're fraudulently advertising their quality. Yes, your comment is an advertisement.
"Experience" == being the current fashion, making products with a brand that makes you feel better about yourself. If you can't describe what distinguishes it, the distinction just isn't there. You're like a Pepsi loyalist who can't pick it out from the other brand in a blind test.
You know, there's nothing more retarded than a fanboy. You're a fanboy of both capitalism and free software, having superstitious faith in both. Basically, you're no better than a creationist. Please just shut up.
What you want is, in other words, more capitalism: people shouldn't own the fruits of their labour, but rather have to give it up for free, getting paid for selling their work hours instead. That's practically Marx's definition of the capitalist mode of exploitation. Of course, in your mind, I suppose the capitalist would have to be the state (otherwise, the people owning the work would still be able to get paid over and over), so your perfect mode of capitalist exploitation would be some kind of state capitalism instead.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, so when it's Amazon and not their app that sends the UDID along with the user's name in plain text it's entirely secure.
Fact 1) is, the UDID is trivially correlated to your real life identity, and it can be trivially used to track your location and movement. Fact 2) is that this article found sharing of your identity in close to 70% percent of the top iPhone apps, whereas the Android story the other day found such sharing in, what, 50% or so, two of which shared the phone number (one app on the list is designed to share phone numbers via a network server, and also exists for the iPhone, with equal risk).
The Android story is filled with fanboys like yourself pretending what's in this story could never happen on the iPhone. This story is filled with fanboys like yourself pretending it doesn't matter anyway, and that the Android story is about something completely different. "True", but only for one application.
What you're doing is fraudulent advertising of Apple's unproven security, based on nothing but corporate loyalty and wishful thinking. Hello, you just said, yesterday, that "this kind of stuff will mean an app won't get into the App Store". But Apple actually provides an API for it.
Reality Distortion Field is in full effect.
You're imagining things. I never "defended" Google for remotely uninstalling applications, and I never said Google was to be trusted. I only stated as a matter of fact that BasilBrush was wrong in both cases, which he is. If you think speaking the truth makes me a Google apologist, then perhaps you need to step out of the RDF.
You're a fraud.
I know you find it hard to read comments, but some of the apps mentioned here send your name in plain text along with the UID, making the UID into an alias for your name. Perfectly reasonable when it's done with Apple's products, of course, as the limits of the reasonable moves along with them.
Notice how you go from full attack mode to full defensive mode along with corporate loyalty. You're a pathetic excuse of a human being.
Bashing Apple has been OK for some time, but there's still a very vocal minority that goes into full denial every time Apple does something objectionable. Like most of the first comments here.
Sorry, but it has already been established in the discussion about possible privacy invasions in Android software that this can't happen on iOS. Because it simply can't happen.
The fanboy is you. BasilBrush said -- fraudulently, as is the way of you Apple fans -- that Google would never pull a malicious app. He can be wrong about both this and about Apple's oh so perfect "security screening" (this isn't even what Apple's screening is about) at the same time.
Wake up, moron. I wrote "the app's server".
No, but it destroys his.
Right. You'll buy your apps elsewhere. Oops.
You're a bit too much of a fanboy to speak the truth. Android apps have been pulled in the past, and even remotely disabled.
The problem with the article is that they label apps as "suspicious" when they work as intended. Bump, for instance, is an information sharing app. It's designed to share your contact info (if you choose so) with other phones. I can't imagine it isn't one of the two apps that transmit the phone number, IMSI, etc., to the app's server, as that's how it's supposed to work.
Of course, Bump is also available for the iPhone through Apple's app store.
You mean Blackberry. Apple's security is pretty fucking poor.
"One of the benefits of a single app store" -- like the single Android Market, you mean? You don't know how good Apple's security screening is, so you just choose to trust them for no reason whatsoever.
Stop spreading that retarded meme.
iTunes isn't fast at all, and it's about as efficient as the United Nations. We're talking about a ~100MB music player app here. It consumes vast amounts of RAM and disk space, has extremely poor support for formats not officially sanctioned by Apple, and for music players not produced by Apple. For its extreme bloat, it's not very feature rich. Oh, and you have to use it if you want to use Apple's latest gizmos. There's a lot of hatred of iTunes out there, jfgi. I thought it was a Windows only thing, but many Mac users seem to agree. Another thing is that iTunes dominates the Mac platform to such a degree that no one has developed a decent mp3 player for it.
Finder: Just not as good as most of the others. Windows Explorer, Dolphin, Konqueror, possibly even Nautilus. How about doing even the simplest things? Slow, sometimes unresponsive w/spinning beach ball.
The BSD subsystem is just poorly done. There's a reason why many of its userspace utilities are replicated by package collections like Fink: the ones in OS X suck. Is python still compiled without readline support?
Hardware support: Yes, let's stick to buying overpriced crap from Apple only. Like any other cult, Apples don't get to hang with the cool guys.
Obsolescence: Now try running this years software on a five years old Mac. It's obsolete.
I'm a hater, yes, but I hate fanboys, not Apple's products. Many of their products are fine (the laptops especially; I've owned one), I just happen to be fed up with the frauds who advertise them at any opportunity. There are tons of those here on Slashdot, often hovering at +5, insightful just for saying they love Apple products. I'm fed up not with their products, but with how they're supposedly "revolutionary" while doing absolutely nothing new, and few things better.
re: market share, we were talking about Apple's supposedly extreme popularity here, which is effectively debunked by their market share. Their profits are entirely irrelevant. You should ask: who cares about their profits? Their stockholders, and the stockholders only, should be the answer. Customers taking joy from the fact that a big corporation makes a profit on them is absurd, yet you see this all the time ... but only with Apple's customers. Why? Because they're fans, rooting for one corporation as if it were a hockey team. But it's a giant tech corporation, and being a supporter of one of them is simply delusional behaviour.
re: massively overpriced tech stock: the stock market is rarely right when everyone has jumped the same bandwagon.
When "experience" is touted again and again, as the sole selling point, with nothing quantifiable whatsoever to back it up (or when the little there is, is evidently bullshit), as is the case with Apple, then I take "experience" to be marketing.
Also, Apple worshipers tend to disregard everything that sucks when it comes to Apple: iTunes. Finder. The BSD subsystem. Support for non-sanctioned hardware. The fact that their computers are obsolete much faster than any competing platform (OS9 --> OS X PPC --> OS X i686 --> OS X x86_64, and fanboys have complaints with the likes of Adobe for not catching up). You could say that the user experience is utterly shit, and it would be just as true as saying it's brilliant. So, to repeat: it's marketing.
And Apple still has less than 10% of the computing desktop, less than 10% of the mobile phones, so I guess your point has been proven: Apple's brand of "superior experience" has failed.
Either you're a self-sufficient serviceman, or you're a clueless moron.
Wrong. There's a tiny minority of loudmouths who like Apple. Even the huge success of the iPhone -- the only phone in the world, according to the media -- only has something like 10% market share.
Also, their supposedly ineffably well designed laptops have a worse malfunction rate than Asus, Toshiba and Sony, despite Apple only catering to the midrange and high end. So: no better than others, which means you're fraudulently advertising their quality. Yes, your comment is an advertisement.
"Experience" == being the current fashion, making products with a brand that makes you feel better about yourself. If you can't describe what distinguishes it, the distinction just isn't there. You're like a Pepsi loyalist who can't pick it out from the other brand in a blind test.
Wrong.
You know, there's nothing more retarded than a fanboy. You're a fanboy of both capitalism and free software, having superstitious faith in both. Basically, you're no better than a creationist. Please just shut up.
What's the difference between production and service again?
What you want is, in other words, more capitalism: people shouldn't own the fruits of their labour, but rather have to give it up for free, getting paid for selling their work hours instead. That's practically Marx's definition of the capitalist mode of exploitation. Of course, in your mind, I suppose the capitalist would have to be the state (otherwise, the people owning the work would still be able to get paid over and over), so your perfect mode of capitalist exploitation would be some kind of state capitalism instead.
Has your mother told you that you're an imbecile?
You can probably use that 1080p for presentations. It's not as if a laptop with Powerpoint necessarily will be more suited for it.
60 years of anti-socialist brainwashing does tend to wash away some mental functions as well.