The problem with this way of thinking is that once the device is one generation out, Apple will not fix the device. They'll only sell you a replacement.
That is the nature of Apple products. If you don't understand this when you purchase them, you are a poorly informed consumer. It is that way with their whole ecosystem, one irreplaceable button isn't going to change that.
I've never owned an Apple device, never want to. I encourage others to not own them either, they are overpriced and inflexible. They do work well for their customers who have different requirements than I do though.
The thing I do appreciate about Apple is that they are the biggest advocate for the security of their customers when it doesn't conflict with their business interests. Security is hard, they at least try. I'm not a fan of a lot of things Apple does, but there are clearly ways a 3rd party could compromise the security of somebody's phone with a fake / altered fingerprint reading home button.
This does not seem unreasonable. I say this because the home button is also a fingerprint reader, which is a security device. If a shop installs some kind of 3rd party button there, the security of the device could be compromised.
Apple's garden is walled. It keeps the users in, but also keeps the bad things out.https://apple.slashdot.org/story/17/04/07/1734249/the-iphone-7-has-arbitrary-software-locks-that-prevent-repair#
Google is doing this to build a migration path for users XP to Chrome OS.
By 2015 Google will have a mature Chrome OS, and a huge number of XP users that have no migration path. This is a huge opportunity for Google to win these people over as users -- first as Chrome users, then as Chrome Apps start becoming plentiful through Chrome, XP users will have a way to use modern services while skipping over WIndows XP and the non-existent modern services that will be available for it.
The next step for Google is to get Windows to boot directly into Chrome instead of WIndows XP loading the Explorer Desktop. This is a trivial configuration. Every Windows XP box can be converted into a Chrome OS box once Google gets all the right pieces in place. This is a path to wean users off of Windows and onto Chrome OS.
Of course, when users have to purchase another machine, they will already be familiar with Chrome OS.
As soon as you can push through 10 million units of PC sales through an OEM with your OS pre-installed, you can stop having Microsoft sign your shim and deal directly with the OEM.
> The responsible thing to do when you find a bug is to inform those who are at risk from the bug. Any delay leaves those people at risk unnecessarily, and is irresponsible.
The users were at ~0% risk until the information was disclosed in the wild (with example of exploit). It is likely that this vulnerability has existed undiscovered for months or even years. Waiting an additional 7-10 days to disclose to the world and give Microsoft the ability to patch this (or at least assess the impact) would have been the responsible thing.
If some Google researcher had to track down this vulnerability and it hadn't yet been observed in the wild, it conceivably had ZERO systems at risk. All software has defects and potential vulnerabilities, only the known vulnerabilities actually pose immediate risk. The minute that researcher fully disclosed, every Windows desktop system has become a potential target, whereas immediately before none were at risk (assuming this wasn't in the wild).
The generally accepted responsible practice is to inform the party responsible for fixing the the bug (Microsoft in this case), and give them a reasonable window of time to issue a fix. If they fail to fix in a timely fashion, or it is observed in the wild, then go full disclosure. What this researcher did was flat-out irresponsible, and considering it exposed a business rival's users to more risk, was also a malicious act.
Had the Google researcher found a security flaw in GMail or Google Drive, he most certainly would have informed the appropriate Google product team and kept the vulnerability confidential. Perhaps after resolution the researcher would have released an academic explanation of the flaw and how it was dealt with.
If it hadn't been Microsoft, Google may have been a bit more responsible about this, but since it makes their competitor look bad, time to forget about "do no evil".
If you actively block (using a powered radio-frequency transmitter) in the USA, you are in violation of FCC regulations. Prepare for the government to come at you and take your money. If you passively block through construction materials and techniques, that is 100% completely legal. There are special wall papers, paints, wall boards and other materials that can passively block radio waves. Also, incorporating steel into the construction also inhibits radio signals.
Microsoft doesn't care much about mobile license revenue. They make more off of every Android phone (through patent royalties) that is sold than Windows Phone from a licensing standpoint. They are doing this to build an ecosystem and maintain relevance.
The solution for people who aren't wearing a "blue Microsoft badge" is that Windows Phone provides a solution to the 31 flavors ecosystem mess that is Android, it has a simple and clean user interface that Steve Wozniac said must have been designed by ex-Apple employees and the ghost of Steve Jobs. It's new, not stale like iOS. It's simple with one page of scrolling icons that is consistent across manufacturers, not the 7 versions of Android that are in the field, all with lame customizations to the UI for OEMs attempting to stay relevant.
XBOX is the largest console gaming brand there. It's not about a version of the console, it's about the brand. XBOX means entertainment, and its the brand that youth identify with. All their investment in the brand between XBOX and XBOX 360 will make XBOX 720 the market leader. Nintendo has become a niche. and Sony is struggling to keep their house in order. Nintendo is a great content company, and they've made some serious hardware innovation in the past, but Wii U fell on deaf ears. Not sure how they are going to navigate out of that. It's all about time horizon. Microsoft has the cash war chest to win the long, drawn out battles. They fight for 12 years to own the next 20 years of console gaming.
As far as Sony goes, all of these big companies deal with coopetition because their lines of business are so diverse. They have different product divisions with faux "business firewalls" so that Samsung can sell Apple memory chips, but also sell Galaxy phones in an attempt to take away their market share. Those firewalls have varying levels of success, but the fact that Sony sells Windows PCs and Playstations has little to do with the overall relationships between the two companies; they cannot survive without each other in the big picture, so they accept it and move on. Even Apple does the same thing, as the iCloud is powered by Microsoft Windows Azure.
If somebody the size of Google or Microsoft didn't exist, who could afford to be fighting Apple right now? Apple's price point is what opened the door for Google to walk in and fill the void. Apple values brand over product price, which maintains their brand value, but created market opportunity for somebody else. Had Apple found a way to address the low end, without cannibalizing their premium product and their brand, Google would be in a very different position. I say Google lightly, because Samsung is making more money off of Android than Google is. The term "Galaxy Phone" now applies generically to Android devices by consumers.
8-12% is a 3rd place player in the market. They are not going to displace Apple, the Mac culture and brand is too strong. Android ecosystem is fragmented enough for Microsoft to make some gains there, but they are going to have a difficult time competing against Android being free for OEMs. There will always people who do not want to be Google's "product", and people who do not want to pay $30 for a $2 Lightening cable, people who don't want Apple's walled garden, and people who don't want the overly techie Android experience. For those people, Windows Phone makes a compelling alternative.
Windows Mobile was the problem. Windows Phone is the solution. iOS and Android had a blue ocean to deal with -- millions of users choosing their first smart phone. Windows Phone has the challenge of displacing established leaders, which is an expensive proposition.
They did it with XBOX, and they will do it again with Windows Phone. They threw millions at XBOX and people laughed at them. Now they are the #1 console brand. Apple and Samsung are stronger competitors than Sony and Nintendo though. I think Microsoft should aim for 8-12% of the market. That is achievable, especially with their enterprise support and relationships.
Their Windows Phone platform is good stuff -- the biggest problem with it is that it is late to the game.
The problem with Windows Mobile is that it was the best...for awhile. When big companies have the best of something, they get lazy because they fear cannibalizing their own product with another product. Jobs' Apple understood the fallacy of this belief and was not afraid to cannibalize his own products as long as they were top notch. If Windows Mobile was never good enough for the time, they wouldn't have stopped innovating.
Windows Phone is in impressive product, it is taking a good foothold everywhere but the United States. US is more challenging because the population has already converted to Android or iOS. People have yet to make that decision elsewhere though, and many are choosing Windows Phone and loving it.
Windows Phone 7 was unveiled to the world at Mobile World Congress in February of 2010, which would be almost a year before Blackberry released their product. Blackberry had plenty of time to pick it over before releasing their product.
wtf are you talking about? The design of an icon referring to what it does is much different than designing something to be used the way the actual physical THING works.
"If you want to sell Windows, then you can ONLY sell Windows OS's."
That is where Microsoft got itself on the wrong side of the law. Giving away a product others pay for (Web browser / Netscape), isn't the nicest thing to do, but people do that every day. People used to PAY for e-mail before Hotmail and Gmail came along. Now free e-mail is standard except for corporate and people who want real support.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with this way of thinking is that once the device is one generation out, Apple will not fix the device. They'll only sell you a replacement.
That is the nature of Apple products. If you don't understand this when you purchase them, you are a poorly informed consumer. It is that way with their whole ecosystem, one irreplaceable button isn't going to change that.
I've never owned an Apple device, never want to. I encourage others to not own them either, they are overpriced and inflexible. They do work well for their customers who have different requirements than I do though.
The thing I do appreciate about Apple is that they are the biggest advocate for the security of their customers when it doesn't conflict with their business interests. Security is hard, they at least try. I'm not a fan of a lot of things Apple does, but there are clearly ways a 3rd party could compromise the security of somebody's phone with a fake / altered fingerprint reading home button.
This does not seem unreasonable. I say this because the home button is also a fingerprint reader, which is a security device. If a shop installs some kind of 3rd party button there, the security of the device could be compromised.
Apple's garden is walled. It keeps the users in, but also keeps the bad things out.https://apple.slashdot.org/story/17/04/07/1734249/the-iphone-7-has-arbitrary-software-locks-that-prevent-repair#
"For me, it's all about officer safety..."
The guy driving isn't even wearing a seat belt!
Access from anywhere.
Really? What part of Senegal, West Africa screams "Hey, there broadband and wi-fi everywhere!"
I don't see this launching soon.
...and still have access to the superior Linux command line tools.
I see you haven't learned PowerShell yet.
Yeah, tell that to the OpenSSL team, it will cheer them up.
Make it hail!
You are the only person here who gets it. Check out my other comment for details.
Google is doing this to build a migration path for users XP to Chrome OS.
By 2015 Google will have a mature Chrome OS, and a huge number of XP users that have no migration path. This is a huge opportunity for Google to win these people over as users -- first as Chrome users, then as Chrome Apps start becoming plentiful through Chrome, XP users will have a way to use modern services while skipping over WIndows XP and the non-existent modern services that will be available for it.
The next step for Google is to get Windows to boot directly into Chrome instead of WIndows XP loading the Explorer Desktop. This is a trivial configuration. Every Windows XP box can be converted into a Chrome OS box once Google gets all the right pieces in place. This is a path to wean users off of Windows and onto Chrome OS.
Of course, when users have to purchase another machine, they will already be familiar with Chrome OS.
What a twist!
As soon as you can push through 10 million units of PC sales through an OEM with your OS pre-installed, you can stop having Microsoft sign your shim and deal directly with the OEM.
Well, if the terrorists were pro-Israel Jews, they may consider trying to find other Jews to support their cause.
Fortunately the people they spoke to were reasonable people.
> The responsible thing to do when you find a bug is to inform those who are at risk from the bug. Any delay leaves those people at risk unnecessarily, and is irresponsible.
The users were at ~0% risk until the information was disclosed in the wild (with example of exploit). It is likely that this vulnerability has existed undiscovered for months or even years. Waiting an additional 7-10 days to disclose to the world and give Microsoft the ability to patch this (or at least assess the impact) would have been the responsible thing.
If some Google researcher had to track down this vulnerability and it hadn't yet been observed in the wild, it conceivably had ZERO systems at risk. All software has defects and potential vulnerabilities, only the known vulnerabilities actually pose immediate risk. The minute that researcher fully disclosed, every Windows desktop system has become a potential target, whereas immediately before none were at risk (assuming this wasn't in the wild).
The generally accepted responsible practice is to inform the party responsible for fixing the the bug (Microsoft in this case), and give them a reasonable window of time to issue a fix. If they fail to fix in a timely fashion, or it is observed in the wild, then go full disclosure. What this researcher did was flat-out irresponsible, and considering it exposed a business rival's users to more risk, was also a malicious act.
Had the Google researcher found a security flaw in GMail or Google Drive, he most certainly would have informed the appropriate Google product team and kept the vulnerability confidential. Perhaps after resolution the researcher would have released an academic explanation of the flaw and how it was dealt with.
If it hadn't been Microsoft, Google may have been a bit more responsible about this, but since it makes their competitor look bad, time to forget about "do no evil".
If you actively block (using a powered radio-frequency transmitter) in the USA, you are in violation of FCC regulations. Prepare for the government to come at you and take your money. If you passively block through construction materials and techniques, that is 100% completely legal. There are special wall papers, paints, wall boards and other materials that can passively block radio waves. Also, incorporating steel into the construction also inhibits radio signals.
Get a tube TV, VHS VCR, antiquated DVR -- nobody's going to want to steal that sh!t, PROBLEM SOLVED!
Microsoft doesn't care much about mobile license revenue. They make more off of every Android phone (through patent royalties) that is sold than Windows Phone from a licensing standpoint. They are doing this to build an ecosystem and maintain relevance.
The solution for people who aren't wearing a "blue Microsoft badge" is that Windows Phone provides a solution to the 31 flavors ecosystem mess that is Android, it has a simple and clean user interface that Steve Wozniac said must have been designed by ex-Apple employees and the ghost of Steve Jobs. It's new, not stale like iOS. It's simple with one page of scrolling icons that is consistent across manufacturers, not the 7 versions of Android that are in the field, all with lame customizations to the UI for OEMs attempting to stay relevant.
XBOX is the largest console gaming brand there. It's not about a version of the console, it's about the brand. XBOX means entertainment, and its the brand that youth identify with. All their investment in the brand between XBOX and XBOX 360 will make XBOX 720 the market leader. Nintendo has become a niche. and Sony is struggling to keep their house in order. Nintendo is a great content company, and they've made some serious hardware innovation in the past, but Wii U fell on deaf ears. Not sure how they are going to navigate out of that. It's all about time horizon. Microsoft has the cash war chest to win the long, drawn out battles. They fight for 12 years to own the next 20 years of console gaming.
As far as Sony goes, all of these big companies deal with coopetition because their lines of business are so diverse. They have different product divisions with faux "business firewalls" so that Samsung can sell Apple memory chips, but also sell Galaxy phones in an attempt to take away their market share. Those firewalls have varying levels of success, but the fact that Sony sells Windows PCs and Playstations has little to do with the overall relationships between the two companies; they cannot survive without each other in the big picture, so they accept it and move on. Even Apple does the same thing, as the iCloud is powered by Microsoft Windows Azure.
If somebody the size of Google or Microsoft didn't exist, who could afford to be fighting Apple right now? Apple's price point is what opened the door for Google to walk in and fill the void. Apple values brand over product price, which maintains their brand value, but created market opportunity for somebody else. Had Apple found a way to address the low end, without cannibalizing their premium product and their brand, Google would be in a very different position. I say Google lightly, because Samsung is making more money off of Android than Google is. The term "Galaxy Phone" now applies generically to Android devices by consumers.
8-12% is a 3rd place player in the market. They are not going to displace Apple, the Mac culture and brand is too strong. Android ecosystem is fragmented enough for Microsoft to make some gains there, but they are going to have a difficult time competing against Android being free for OEMs. There will always people who do not want to be Google's "product", and people who do not want to pay $30 for a $2 Lightening cable, people who don't want Apple's walled garden, and people who don't want the overly techie Android experience. For those people, Windows Phone makes a compelling alternative.
Windows Mobile was the problem. Windows Phone is the solution. iOS and Android had a blue ocean to deal with -- millions of users choosing their first smart phone. Windows Phone has the challenge of displacing established leaders, which is an expensive proposition.
They did it with XBOX, and they will do it again with Windows Phone. They threw millions at XBOX and people laughed at them. Now they are the #1 console brand. Apple and Samsung are stronger competitors than Sony and Nintendo though. I think Microsoft should aim for 8-12% of the market. That is achievable, especially with their enterprise support and relationships.
Their Windows Phone platform is good stuff -- the biggest problem with it is that it is late to the game.
The problem with Windows Mobile is that it was the best...for awhile. When big companies have the best of something, they get lazy because they fear cannibalizing their own product with another product. Jobs' Apple understood the fallacy of this belief and was not afraid to cannibalize his own products as long as they were top notch. If Windows Mobile was never good enough for the time, they wouldn't have stopped innovating.
Windows Phone is in impressive product, it is taking a good foothold everywhere but the United States. US is more challenging because the population has already converted to Android or iOS. People have yet to make that decision elsewhere though, and many are choosing Windows Phone and loving it.
This article title is WRONG. Windows Mobile had the problem, which is the predecessor to Windows Phone.
Big difference, completely different platform.
That's nice.
Windows Phone 7 was unveiled to the world at Mobile World Congress in February of 2010, which would be almost a year before Blackberry released their product. Blackberry had plenty of time to pick it over before releasing their product.
wtf are you talking about? The design of an icon referring to what it does is much different than designing something to be used the way the actual physical THING works.
"If you want to sell Windows, then you can ONLY sell Windows OS's."
That is where Microsoft got itself on the wrong side of the law. Giving away a product others pay for (Web browser / Netscape), isn't the nicest thing to do, but people do that every day. People used to PAY for e-mail before Hotmail and Gmail came along. Now free e-mail is standard except for corporate and people who want real support.