A few hundred? That seems significant to me, and you have to remember those are the few hundred that managed to find that forum post, imagine how many people this might have happened to that blamed their kids/husband/wife/etc or didn't even notice or didn't even find the forum?
A few hundred = a not even that sucessfull phishing expedition. Even a few thousand would be a drop in the bucket.
They could ask him but they don't have enough to block him. Someone also bought Monkey Island 2, does that mean Apple should block Lucasarts ? Apple should issue refunds, just because it's good business but the problem here in all likelihood is on the client side.
Why don't the customer get email receipts when the transaction happens?
You do get a receipt normally, however since the accounts were compromised and personal detail altered (according to the thread) that confirmation could've been sent elsewhere. Some people report do getting receipts and being informed that way something was going on. This is all on the first page of the linked Apple support discussion.
And why can't Apple figure out which device downloaded the app to provide that information to law enforcement?
You want Apple to track their customers ? Yeah, that'll go over great with the paranoid Slashdot crowd.
That's a pain because they have to make a whole new system image. These things should go a lot more smoothly for iDevices after the release of iOS 5 this fall which will support over the air delta updates.
It's fashionable on Slashdot to belittle Apple's patents ("They've just patented a rectangle",etc.) but they've got an extensive portfolio going back some 20 odd years, the financial clout to buy access to more like they did with the Nortel patents and the contacts around the industry to set up cross-licensing deals to help them. And remember that Apple was actually already in a patent dispute with Motorola before Google acquired Motorola Mobility and there was no panic about that anywhere so by themselves those patents may not have a big impact, maybe taken together with another portfolio they may provide an edge but that remains to be seen.
There is already something called the social contract and to operate a vehicle you need a drivers' license which is basically just a way of saying you know of and promise to abide by the highway code. When you think about it there already is very little police to control a large population (in the western democracies at least.)
Unless your point is that people should not allow honest members of the public to use their wifi, in which case I will respond that the state should stop allowing honest members of the public to use their streets, since there could be drug dealers etc.
The point here is "reasonable precautions", eg. logging, site whitelisting or even just limiting available bandwidth. Let me turn it into a car analogy: say you lend your car to a guy off of the street, he runs someone over and turns out not to have a license nor insurance. You would probably be liable even though you weren't in the car at the time. If you had checked his license and insurance beforehand you'd maybe still be held liable but have a much better case. Again the city example is crooked because the city doesn't even own the streets, it's public property.
That's a bad analogy because the city is taking reasonable precautions against drug dealing by employing a police force. If you just leave your Wifi connection open to everyone as an excuse you are not taking reasonable precautions against illegal use of this service you are offering literally everyone off of the street.
I said that was the intent. While there's a lot of Android phones out there, vendors' profits are still in the toilet. With the software commoditized they're left competing on hardware but as Apple still has a lock on the high end other vendors are in a race to the bottom there too with ever diminishing margins. It's a crappy business to be in at the moment for anyone but Apple. That's irrelevant to Google though, they have achieved their objective of vastly reducing the impact of iOS stopping the use of Google's services.
This all started because Google decided they needed to crush iOS by giving away Android for free. That's their right, Google couldn't risk Apple potentially switching all those customers over to another search provider one day. But they entered into this by trying to commoditize Apple's highly profitable business, they had to have known this was going to be a fight from start.
I agree Google is just doing what it needs to do but I could do without their whining. They knew what they were getting into with Android, from potential Java lawsuits to getting heat from Apple, but they didn't have any choice. Google didn't have a choice because they couldn't let Apple have the power to lock them out of the mobile market and their OEM's had no choice because they were blind sided by Apple to the point where it could buy their entire industry out of petty cash.
They've got search pretty much locked up though. It would take a huge initial investment in servers, storage, etc. to get a decent Google alternative up and running. You can't start small and ramp up because you can't charge for the service (search) and related products like advertising are useless until you get enough eyeballs. Only a handful of companies could break into that market like Microsoft did with Bing, maybe Facebook could or Apple because they have both the funds and the ready-made audience.
I remember a lot of speculation about an iPod-phone (complete with mockups of a touchpad iPod-like click wheel) while Apple denied they were working on such a beast around 2006. Google is pretty useless in finding references to this being thoroughly polluted by "antenna gate" nonsense and the like. Maybe I remembered it wrong, it happens.
Way to go, champ. You've really got some good information, there. Meaty article, solid reasoning... supported the heck out of your tablet snobbery with an article about phones.
It was widely reported so I just pasted in the first link I found. I'm assuming slashdot readers know all about the latest news.
Slashdot Mirror
Because having a complicated password will prevent users from losing it in phishing scams ?
A few hundred? That seems significant to me, and you have to remember those are the few hundred that managed to find that forum post, imagine how many people this might have happened to that blamed their kids/husband/wife/etc or didn't even notice or didn't even find the forum?
A few hundred = a not even that sucessfull phishing expedition. Even a few thousand would be a drop in the bucket.
Apple should do more than just issue refunds, by ignoring this it only encourages them to become more bold, and they might want to ask app seller Hongbin Suo why his name keeps showing up in the unauthorized purchases
They could ask him but they don't have enough to block him. Someone also bought Monkey Island 2, does that mean Apple should block Lucasarts ?
Apple should issue refunds, just because it's good business but the problem here in all likelihood is on the client side.
Why don't the customer get email receipts when the transaction happens?
You do get a receipt normally, however since the accounts were compromised and personal detail altered (according to the thread) that confirmation could've been sent elsewhere. Some people report do getting receipts and being informed that way something was going on. This is all on the first page of the linked Apple support discussion.
And why can't Apple figure out which device downloaded the app to provide that information to law enforcement?
You want Apple to track their customers ? Yeah, that'll go over great with the paranoid Slashdot crowd.
Anyone with a jailbroken iOS device that doesn't have the patch should download and install it. You can simply search for it in Cydia.
Cool, I'll do that.
That's a pain because they have to make a whole new system image. These things should go a lot more smoothly for iDevices after the release of iOS 5 this fall which will support over the air delta updates.
Is there an echo in here ?
Also the summary praises Google for their quick reaction but Android is still vulnerable, as is iOS BTW. You'd think that'd rate a mention at least.
It's fashionable on Slashdot to belittle Apple's patents ("They've just patented a rectangle",etc.) but they've got an extensive portfolio going back some 20 odd years, the financial clout to buy access to more like they did with the Nortel patents and the contacts around the industry to set up cross-licensing deals to help them. And remember that Apple was actually already in a patent dispute with Motorola before Google acquired Motorola Mobility and there was no panic about that anywhere so by themselves those patents may not have a big impact, maybe taken together with another portfolio they may provide an edge but that remains to be seen.
There is already something called the social contract and to operate a vehicle you need a drivers' license which is basically just a way of saying you know of and promise to abide by the highway code. When you think about it there already is very little police to control a large population (in the western democracies at least.)
Unless your point is that people should not allow honest members of the public to use their wifi, in which case I will respond that the state should stop allowing honest members of the public to use their streets, since there could be drug dealers etc.
The point here is "reasonable precautions", eg. logging, site whitelisting or even just limiting available bandwidth. Let me turn it into a car analogy: say you lend your car to a guy off of the street, he runs someone over and turns out not to have a license nor insurance. You would probably be liable even though you weren't in the car at the time. If you had checked his license and insurance beforehand you'd maybe still be held liable but have a much better case. Again the city example is crooked because the city doesn't even own the streets, it's public property.
They probably have a page of legalese you have to sign, or "click to agree" releasing them from all liability.
That's a bad analogy because the city is taking reasonable precautions against drug dealing by employing a police force. If you just leave your Wifi connection open to everyone as an excuse you are not taking reasonable precautions against illegal use of this service you are offering literally everyone off of the street.
I said that was the intent. While there's a lot of Android phones out there, vendors' profits are still in the toilet. With the software commoditized they're left competing on hardware but as Apple still has a lock on the high end other vendors are in a race to the bottom there too with ever diminishing margins. It's a crappy business to be in at the moment for anyone but Apple. That's irrelevant to Google though, they have achieved their objective of vastly reducing the impact of iOS stopping the use of Google's services.
So it's ridiculous to make one the good guy and the other the villain.
Amazon didn't invent clicking on things either. They still won.
This all started because Google decided they needed to crush iOS by giving away Android for free. That's their right, Google couldn't risk Apple potentially switching all those customers over to another search provider one day. But they entered into this by trying to commoditize Apple's highly profitable business, they had to have known this was going to be a fight from start.
I agree Google is just doing what it needs to do but I could do without their whining. They knew what they were getting into with Android, from potential Java lawsuits to getting heat from Apple, but they didn't have any choice. Google didn't have a choice because they couldn't let Apple have the power to lock them out of the mobile market and their OEM's had no choice because they were blind sided by Apple to the point where it could buy their entire industry out of petty cash.
Apple is trying to refight the UI design battle it lost over two decades ago. It didn't win that time and it won't win this time.
There have been some changes in the last 20 years. If the 1-Click patent is valid why wouldn't Apple's patents be ?
They've got search pretty much locked up though. It would take a huge initial investment in servers, storage, etc. to get a decent Google alternative up and running. You can't start small and ramp up because you can't charge for the service (search) and related products like advertising are useless until you get enough eyeballs. Only a handful of companies could break into that market like Microsoft did with Bing, maybe Facebook could or Apple because they have both the funds and the ready-made audience.
That's an excuse a six year old might use: "But dad, he started it."
"Your honor, my client never shot anyone before he bought that gun."
I remember a lot of speculation about an iPod-phone (complete with mockups of a touchpad iPod-like click wheel) while Apple denied they were working on such a beast around 2006. Google is pretty useless in finding references to this being thoroughly polluted by "antenna gate" nonsense and the like. Maybe I remembered it wrong, it happens.
No, Jobs. A month is pushing it, but he was never one for showing his cards.
Way to go, champ. You've really got some good information, there. Meaty article, solid reasoning... supported the heck out of your tablet snobbery with an article about phones.
It was widely reported so I just pasted in the first link I found. I'm assuming slashdot readers know all about the latest news.
Lemme guess, you're an iDiot?
*plonk*
Hy-Brazil is not sinking.